^-. 


United  Brethren 
in  Christ 


■\ 


Proceedings  of  the 
First  General  Convention 
:jgg  of  the 

United  Brethren 
w^         in  Christ 
1878 


fcibrarjp  of  Che  trheolojical  ^eminarjp 

PRINCETON  •  NEW  JERSEY 


PRESENTED  BY 

Rufus  H.    LeFevre 

.5.A4 
\8»7& 


•AN  'asnorjAs 

•3ui  sobe  av  J1AVO 

Aq  p3jr430j  luow 

INnOWOlOHd 


*    T*/ 


PROCEEDINGS 


FIRST  GENERAL  CONVENTION 


United  Brethren  in  Christ, 


DAYTON,  OHIO,  MAY  21-23,  1878. 


COMPRISING  A  COMPLETE  REPOXT 


Discussions  and  x'Vctions  of  said  Convention. 


WM.  McKEE. 


JOHN  DODDS. 
Publishing    CoiiDiiittee. 


D.   L.  RIKE. 


DAYTON,   OHIO: 

Croy,  McFarland  &  Co.,  Book  and  Job  Printers. 

Cor.  Main  and  Si.xth  Sts. 


\ 


^^ 


'::} 


PROCEEDINGS    f^  FEB  ii  195 


FIRST  GENERAL  CONVENTION 


United  Brethren  in  Christ, 


DAYTON,  OHIO,  MAY  21-23,  1878. 


COMPRISING  A  COMPLETE  REPORT 


Discussions  and  Actions  of  said  Convention. 


WM.  McKEE.  JOHN  DODDS.  D.  L.  RIKE. 

P:tblishzng    ComtraUcc. 


DAYTON,   OHIO; 

Crov,  McFakland  &  Co.,  Book;  and  Job  Pi^inters. 

Cor.  Main  and  Si.Kth  Sts. 


4  UNITED    BRETHREN 

11.  Conviction  and  Expediency  as  Constructive  Elements  in 
Denominational  Church  Life.  Rex.  D.  D.  Keedy  and  Kev.  M. 
Spangler. 

12.  Our  Eelation  to  the  Connectional  Interests  of  the  Churchy 
Educational,  3Iissionary,  and  Publishing.  Rev.  J.  Metzger.  Al- 
ternate, Rev.  J.  Dickson. 

13.  The  Clcrman  Work  of  the  United  Brethren  Church  in  its 
Relation  to  the  Secrecy  Law,  Lay  Delegation,  and  Pro  Rata  Rep- 
resentation.    Rev.  J.  Doerkson  and  Rev.  D.  Bonebrake. 

It  is  not  intended  to  restrict  the  convention  exclusively  to  the 
questions  specified.  The  convention  will  hold  itself  open  to  con- 
sider any  propositions  pertaining  to  the  prosperity  of  the  L^nited 
Brethren  Church. 

ENTERTAINMENT. 

Ample  provisions  have  been  made  for  the  entertainment  of  ail 
who  attend.  On  arrival  in  Dayton,  delegates  will  report  at  the 
First  United  Brethren  Church,  on  Fifth  street,  where  the  commit- 
tee will  direct  them  to  their  homes. 

REGULATIONS. 

Any  regularly  appointed  delegate  who  can  not  attend  the  con- 
vention is  hereby  requested  to  provide  a  substitute. 

SPECIAL    INVITATION. 

A  cheerful  and  hearty  invitation  is  hereby  extended  to  the 
bishops  of  the  church  to  attend  and  participate  in  the  counsels 
of  the  convention. 

In  addition  to  the  regularly  appointed  delegates  the  following 
have  been  chosen  as  delegates  at  large : 

Rev.  G-.  A.  Funkhouser,  Professor  in  Union  Biblical  Seminary. 
Rev.  D.  D.  DeLong,  President  Lebanon  Valley  College. 
Rev.  H.  Garst,  Professor  in  Otterbein  University. 
Rev.  W.  T.  Jackson,  President  Green  Hill  Seminary. 
Rev.  "W.  R.  Shucy,  Professor  in  Westfield  College. 
Rev.  W.  J.  Pruner,  President  Ilartsville  University. 
Rev.  E.  B.  Kephart,  President  Western  College. 
Rev.  D.  Shuck,  Professor  in  Lane  University. 

Rev.  J.  Erb,  Ex-Bishop, . 

Rev.  Wm.  Ilanby,  Ex-Bishop,  Westervillc,  Ohio. 
Rev.  A.  Biddle,  Gallon,  Ohio. 

The  following  is  the  list  of  delegates  appointed  for 

conference,  viz.: „ 

By  order  of  the  aforementioned  councils.    . 
W.  McKee,  a.  Rose,  D.  R.  Miller,  J.  H.  Young,  G.  W.  M.  Rigor, 
J,  RuNCK,  J.  G.  Grim,  E.  I^ernard,  M.  Spangler,  J.  Hill. 

Joint  Committee. 


GENERAL  CONVENTION.  0 

LIST    OF    DELEGATES    IN    ATTENDANCE. 

Alleghany  Conference — Rev.  M.  Spangler. 

Pennsylvania  Conference — J).  W.  Profit  and  D.  W.  Crider. 

East  Pennsylvania  Conference — G.  W.  M.  Rigor,  M.  P.  Sanders, 
J.  X.  Quigley,  1.  Baltzell,  L.  Peters,  E.  Light. 

Virginia  Conference — Rev.  C.  I.  B.  Brane. 

Parkersburg  Conference — Z.  Warner,  J.  H.  Spence,  L.  Bum- 
gardner,  G.  W.  Weekly,  S.  Adams,  Dr.  J.  L.  Hensley. 

Muskingum  Conference — B.  F.  Booth,  S.  W.  Koutz,  G.  F.  Deal, 
J.  Cecil,  A.  Bowman,  J.  Mock. 

Central  Ohio  Conference — J.  B.  Resler,  John  Knox,  J.  S.  Mills, 
G.  W.  Wagoner,  Stephen  Miller,  C.  W.  Miller,  D.  Bonebrake,  D. 
Bender,  L.  Gwin,  C.  F.  Barlow,  A.  Orr,  C.  T.  Kirkpatrick,  D.  F. 
Cender,  J.  Hughs. 

Scioto  Conference— J.  A.  Weller,  J.  W.  Sleeper,  H.  W.  Weller, 
S.  F.  Altman,  G.  W.  Deaver,  S.  D.  Fisher,  J.  M.  Mills. 

Miami  Conference — F.  Demotte,  D.  L.  Eike,  John  Dodds,  S.  S. 
Holden,  C.  J,  Burkert,  W.  McKee,  James  McGee,  J.  B.  Kumler, 
D.  J.  Brandenburg,  E.  S.  Chapman,  J.  L.  Swain,  James  Apple- 
gate. 

Sandusky  Conference — A.  Rose,  I.  Crouse,  T.  J.  Harbaugh,  S. 
Adams,  W.  B.  Miller,  O.  Centemyer,  J.  Crim,  B.  M.  Long,  E.  A. 
Bogard,  J.  W.  Esteman,  D.  R.  Miller. 

St.  Joseph  Conference — Rev.  John  R.  Brown. 

Upper  Wabash  Conference — J.  W.  Nye,  E.  Adanison. 

Central  Illinois  Conference — J.  W.  Fisher,  John  Morrison,  J.  B. 
jSTorman,  H.  A.  Myers,  N.  R.  Devore,  W.  M.  Henline. 

DELEGATES    AT    LARGE. 

Professor  H.  Garst,  of  Otterbein  University. 
Bishop  J.  Weaver,  East  Mississippi  District. 
Professor  G.  A.  Funkhouser,  LTniou  Biblical  Seminary. 


United  Brethren  Convention. 


Dayton,  Ohio,  May  21-23,  1873. 

The  convention  was  called  to  order  by  Rev,  Z.  Warner,  of  Park- 
er8bi;rg.  West  Virginia,  chairman  of  the  executive  committee. 

Kev.  G.  W.  M.  fvigor,  of  Harrisburg,  Pennsylvania,  secretary  of 
the  executive  committee,  read  a  list  of  the  reporters  of  the  differ- 
ent daily  papers. 

Prof.  H.  Garst,  of  Otterbein  University,  was  elected  temporary 
chairman,  and  opened  the  convention  by  reading  the  fifth  chapter 
of  Romans,  and  called  on  Eev.  J.  S.  Mills,  of  Westcrville,  Ohio, 
to  offer  prayer,  after  which  the  convention  joined  in  singing . 

"  Children  of  the  heavenly  King, 
As  ^ve  journey  let  us  sing,"  etc. 

After  devotional  exercises  Rev.  Isaac  Grouse,  of  Fostoria,  Ohio, 
was  elected  temporary  secretary,  after  which  Eev.  W.  H,  Lan- 
thurn,  of  Dayton,  delivered  a  very  appropriate  address  of  wel- 
come, and  John  Dodds,  Esq.,  also  of  Dayton,  made  an  address  in 
behalf  of  the  layman  of  the  different  congregations  of  the  United 
Brethren  Church. 

ADDRESS    OF    WELCOME    BY    JOHN    DODDS. 

My  Dear  Brethren  of  the  Convention, — It  becomes  my  pleasant 
duty,  in  behalf  of  the  laymen  and  their  families,  with  Avhom  you 
are  expected  to  stay  for  a  few  days,  to  greet  you.  Shall  I  say 
you  are  welcome?  No,  this  I  need  not  do;  had  j^ou  not  been 
more  than  welcome  we  should  not  have  given  3'ou  the  invitation 
to  hold  this  the  first  convention  of  the  kind  ever  held  in  the 
church.  Shall  I  say  3^011  are  welcome?  No ;  but  a  few  daj-s  we 
hope  to  demonstrate,  not^by  words  alone,  but  around  our  tables,  in 
the  retirement  of  our  homes,  on  the  street,  and  in  every  way  we 
can,  that  we  are  what  you  call  United  Brethren  in  Christ.  Some 
of  us  were  the  first  to  commence  this  work  in  this  city  forty  j'ears 
ago.  We  have  devoted  our  time  and  our  means  to  and  for  the 
church  we  love,  and  in  it  we  expect  to  live  and  die.  It  was  my 
privilege  to  meet  some  of  3'ou  in  the  eastern  conferences  of  the 
church  over  twenty  years  ago.  You  have  come  long  distances 
andspentmoneyoutofyoursmallealaries.  Needlask  whytbi8eacri- 
6 


GENERAL  CONVENTION.  7 

fice  ol  time  and  of  money  ?  It  is  because  of  the  love  you  bear 
our  church — not  a  part  of  it,  but  the  whole  church.  When  I 
think  of  this  our  first  coming  together  I  am  reminded  of  the  first 
annual  conference  held  west  of  the  Alleghany  Mountains,  sixty- 
eight  years  ago,  in  the  barn  of  Mr.  Andrew  Zellers,  not  more  than 
twelve  miles  from  here,  in  this  county.  Methinks  I  see  these  old 
fathers  in  their  councils — a  noble  band  of  United  Brethren,  plan- 
ning and  counseling  what  they  might  do  to  forward  the  best 
interests  of  this  church.  And  that  is  our  purpose.  May  the 
Spirit  that  led  them  also  guide  us,  and  may  this  convention  be  a 
unit  in  its  deliberations,  and  devise  such  liberal  measures  as  that 
the  church  work  may  be  furthered,  many  souls  be  saved,  and  God 
be  glorified. 

The  addresses  made  us  feel  indeed  that  we  had  come  to  no 
strange  place  or  strange  people. 

Rev.  ,Z.  Warner,  of  Parkersburg,  responded  in  a  most  becoming, 
Christian  manner. 

Eev.  B.  F.  Booth  moved  that  since  this  is  a  delegate  convention 
there  be  a  committee  of  three  appointed  on  credentials,  which  was 
carried. 

On  motion  of  Eev.  J.  S.  Mills,  ot  Westerville,  Ohio,  the  chair- 
man was  requested  to  appoint  a  committee  of  five  on  permanent 
organization. 

The  chairman  of  the  convention  stated  that  the  remainder  of 
the  evening  would  be  spent  principally  in  devotional  exercises, 
and  before  proceeding  made  a  few  remarks  explaining  the  object 
of  this  gathering. 

Prayer  was  offered  by  the  following  brethren  :  A.  Bowman,  of 
Canton,  Rev.  L.  Peters,  of  Pennsylvania,  T.  J.  Harbaugh,  of  Pos- 
toria,  Ohio,  and  J.  W.  Sleeper,  of  Scioto  Conference. 

Remarks  were  made  by  Rev.  B.  F.  Booth,  of  Canton,  Ohio,  re- 
minding the  convention  that  true  success  in  this,  as  in  other  things, 
depends  constantly  in  our  reliance  upon  God. 

The  following  committees  were  announced  by  the  Chair  : 

On  Credentials — D.  L.  Hike,  I.  Baltzell,  J.  W.  Fisher,  and  A. 
Rose. 

On  Permanent  Organizatiari — Rev.  L.  Peters,  East  Pennsyl- 
vania; John  Morrison,  Central  Illinois;  J.  H.  Sj^ence,  Parkersburg; 
J.  W.  Nye,  Upper  Wabash,  and  J.  Knox,  Central  Ohio. 

After  singing  "  Praise  God  from  whom  all  blessings  flow,"  etc., 
the  convention  was  dismissed  with  the  benediction  by  Prof  Garst. 


b  UNITED  BRETHREN 

SECOND  DAY— MOEXING  SESSION. 

Wednesday  Morning,  May  22 — 8:30. 

Devotional  exercises  were  conducted  b}'  B.  F.  Booth.  At  9:00 
A.  31.  the  convention  was  called  to  order  b}'  the  chairman.  Eev. 
J.  "W.  Sleeper  read  the  twelfth  chapter  of  Romans  and  oflFered 
prayer.  After  singing  "Together  let  us  sweetly  live,"  etc.,  and 
prayer,  the  following  report  was  made  by  the  Committee  on  Per- 
manent Organization,  which  was  adopted  : 

President,  Eev.  B.  F.  Booth,  Canton,  Ohio ;  vice-presidents, 
Eev.  J.  B.  Eesler,  D.  L.  Eike,  J:  E.  Brown,  H.  A.  Myers,  J.  H. 
Spenee,  M.  Spangler,  W.  B.  Miller ;  secretaries,  Gf.  W.  M.  Eigor, 
and  J.  W.  Nye. 

On  motion  of  llev.  D.  E.  Miller,  a  general  committee  on  reso- 
lutions, to  whom  all  resolutions  introduced  for  the  consideration 
of  the  convention  shall  be  referred  without  debate,  was  authorized 
to  be  appointed  by  the  president. 

On  motion  of  Rev.  D.  E.  Miller,  a  committee  of  three  on  rules 
of  order,  and  on  motion  of  Eev.  I.  Baltzell,  a  committee  of  nine 
on  state  of  the  church,  was  authorized  to  be  appointed  bj'  the 
Chair. 

It  was  agreed  to  consider  the  topics  as  arranged  in  the  pro- 
gramme, unless  otherwise  ordered  by  motion. 

Eev.  Z.  Warner  moved  that  the  convention  meet  at  0  a.  m.,  1:30 
and  7:30  p.  m.,  and  adjourn  on  motion.     Adopted. 

The  Chair  announced,  as  a  Committee  on  Eules  of  Order,  Prof. 
H.  Garst,  Rev.  Z.  Warner,  and  Mr.  W.  B.  Miller. 

In  a  brief  time  Prof.  H.  Garst,  from  the  Committee  on  Rules  of 
Order,  reported : 

1.  Roberts'  Rules  of  Order  as  our  parliamentarj-  guide. 

2.  All  speeches,  except  opening  addresses,  be  limited  to  ten 
minutes. 

3.  That  no  more  than  two  hours  be  spent  on  any  topic. 

Eev.  J.  W.  Fisher  moved  that  the  second  topic  on  the  programme 
be  now  taken  up.     Agreed  to. 

Rev.  A.  Eose,  in  the  absence  of  Eev.  Z.  A.  Colstock,  delivered 
the  opening  address. 

on  pro  rata  representation. 

Mr.  President: — It  is  almost  cruel  to  ask  me  to  open  this  dis- 
cussion. Standing  as  I  do,  second  on  the  programme,  I  had 
expected  to  be  spared,  and  as  the  subject  of  pro  rata  representa- 


GENERAL    CONVENTION.  9 

tion  is  well  understood  by  the  members  of  this  convention,  it  will 
be  impossible  for  me  to  present  any  new  thoughts.  But  I  favor 
pro  rata  representation  because  it  is  right;  the  principle  is  right, 
and  there  is  no  reason  why  the  practice  would  not  be  right.  Sec- 
ondly, the  people  believe  it  to  be  right.  Although  many  of  our 
people  have  not  given  the  subject  much  attention,  jot  as  far  as 
my  knowledge  of  the  church  extends  those  who  think  or  speak  at 
all  favor  it.  They  are  beginning  to  feel  the  effect  of  unequal  rep- 
resentation, and  will  'sooner  or  later  come  to  demand  it.  They  be- 
lieve it  ex^jedient,  and  they  can  not  see  why  numbers  should  not 
be  represented  in  General  Conference.  Third,  it  will  give  encour- 
agement and  energy  to  the  church.  Our  people  will  take  hold  of 
the  enterprises  of  the  church  with  more  vigor  and  cheerfulness 
when  they  know  that  all  is  fair.  There  is  a  restlessness  and  ten- 
dency to  depression  consequent  upon  our  present  mode  of  represen- 
tation, which  a  change  to  pro  rata  will  remove.  Wishing  to  see 
our  church  advance  in  all  her  interests,  and  to  do  our  part  in 
Christian  labor,  I  favor  the  change  contemplated. 

He  was  followed  by  Z.  Warner,  John  Dodds,  Prof  Garst,  E. 
Light,  W.  McKee,  J.  W.  Fisher,  and  J.  13.  Eesler. 

D.  R.  Miller  said :  I  will  answer  the  question  of  Bro.  Dodds, 
viz. :  What  arguments  in  the  General  Conference  were  urged 
against  pro  rata  representation  ?  One  reason  assigned  was  that 
the  laity  had  not  generallj'  requested  it.  Another  reason  was 
that  the  present  manner  of  representation  seemed  to  preserve  the 
equilibrium,  because  the  smaller  conferences  were  the  most  pious, 
and  therefore  most  firm  to  maintain  the  right,  while  the  larger 
and  more  wealthy  conferences  were  liberal  in  sentiment  and  loose 
in  government.  I  will  read  from  the  speeches  of  some  in  Genei*al 
Conference,  lest  some  may  think  this  tin  exaggeration,  I  read  from 
General  Conference  minutes,  page  148:  ^^  A  change  in  representa- 
tion is  not  now  called  for,  xchatever  may  be  the  case  when  the  v:est  is 
filled  up.  There  is  conservatory  of  I'liety.  When  a  church  gets  power 
it  becomes  corrupt.  Sections  not  rich  conserve  piety."  This  po- 
sition had  not  only  been  taken  on  the  General  Conference  floor, 
but  the  Telescope,  by  one  of  the  editors,  had  in  one  article  advocat- 
ed the  same  theor5'.  The  principle  is  this:  The  older  and  pop- 
ulous conferences  will  do  to  support  the  church,  but  can  not  be 
trusted  to  govern  it.  The  principle  of  taxation  without  repre- 
sentation has  before  this  been  advanced,  onl}'  to  be  overthrown 
by  the  better  judgment  and  earnest  protests  of  the  people  in  civil 
governments. 

Again,  pro  rata  representation  was  opposed  because  other  ques- 
tions were  supposed  to  hinge  on  it,  and  this  is  the  chief  reason,  in 
my  opinion,  why  any  one  opposes  it.  The  present  plan  of  repre- 
sentation is  viewed  to  be  the  only  way  to  prevent  the  adoption  of 
other  measures  which  might  defeat  the  promotion  of  some  who 
occupy  official  positions;  for  it  is  true  that  the  present  system  ad- 


10  UNITED  BRETHREN 

mits  of  a  minority  government,  and  this  exists  at  this  time.*  Of- 
ficials in  this  church  to-day  hold  their  positions  by  a  vote  repre- 
senting a  minority  of  the  constituency  of  the  whole  chui'ch,  I 
ask,  Is  this  just?  Some  say  territory  must  be  represented  and 
not  membership.  If  so,  why  not  make  the  bishops'  districts,  as 
nearly  as  possible,  contain  the  same  number  of  square  miles  or 
acres  of  land?  Whj^  not  expect  each  district  or  conference  to 
take  an  equal  number  of  church  papers,  pay  an  equal  amount  to 
sustain  the  missionary  and  other  general  interests  of  the  church? 
Why  not  ask  each  conference  of  the  same  number  of  acres  to  pay 
equal  amounts  to  support  the  bishops  ?  Do  you  not  see  that 
this  theory  is  not  applied,  except  in  the  formation  of  the  legisla- 
tive body  of  the  church  ?  I  again  ask,  Is  it  just  ?  Is  it  equitable  ? 
Is  it  in  harmony  with  the  spirit  of  the  gospel? 

Eev.  J.  S.  Mills  said :  The  injustice  and  evil  ©f  the  present 
basis  of  representation  in  the  General  Conference  will  be  most  fully 
seen  by  examining  some  statistics  on  the  subject.  By  the  last  pub- 
lished statistics  we  learn  that  there  are  forty-two  annual  confer- 
ences; twentj-three  would  be  a  majority  of  the  Avhole  number. 
2sow,  by  adding  together  twenty-three  of  the  smallest  conferences, 
they  have  but  one-fourth  the  membership  of  the  whole  church ; 
yet  these  twenty-three  conferences  (this  one-fourth  of  the  church) 
are  entitled  to  a  majority  of  the  delegates  in  the  General  Confer- 
ence. This  minority  of  one-fourth,  by  its  delegates,  can  make  all 
of  our  laws,  appropriate  all  of  our  money,  and  elect  all  of  our  of- 
ficers. This  shows  what  can  occur.  We  will  now  show  what  has 
occurred  in  this  direction  : 

There  were  148,763  members  reported  in  the  church  at  the  time 
of  the  last  General  Conference.  When  the  vote  was  taken  on  pro 
rata  representation,  the  representatives  of  less  than  50,000  mem- 
bers defeated  that  just  plan.  Thus,  while  it  was  a  majority  of  the 
votes,  it  was  but  about  one-third  of  the  chui'ch  that  carried  that 
question,  and  defeated  the  best  and  most  equitable  measure  pro- 
posed during  the  ivhole  session. 

AVhen  the  secrecy  law  was  voted  on  to  the  church,  it  was  done 
by  a  large  majority  of  votes.  But  these  votes  represented  only 
about  -55,000  members,  being  a  small  majority  of  the  whole  church. 
Any  person  can  verify  these  statements  who  will  take  the  time 
and  exercise  the  patience  necessar^'to  analyze  the  votes  as  recorded 
in  the  minutes  of  the  last  General  Conference,  in  connection  with 
the  table  found  on  page  38  of  the  church  almanac  for  1878. 

It  is  certain  that  some  of  the  general  officers  of  the  church  were 
elected  by  a  minority  of  the  church  in  the  same  way.  It  is  quite 
certain  that  Bishop  Wright,  editor  of  the  Telescope,  J.  W.  Ilott, 
and  the  assistant  editor,  W.  C>.  Toby,  were  elected  in  this  manner, 
and  hold  their  positions  to-day  contrary  to  the  wishes  of  the  ma- 

"This  is  not  intended  to  apply  to  all  the  officials,  for  (juite  a  number  were  elected  by  a 
a  good  majority  represented  in  General  Conference. 


GENERAL  CONVENTION.  11 

jority  of  the  church.  It  is  no  wonder  that  the  church  is  restless 
and  feverish  and  refuses  to  be  quiet,  when  its  most  important  leg- 
islation is  made,  and  some  of  its  most  important  officers  are  elected 
by  the  minority  against  the  wish  of  the  large  majority.  Not  un- 
til equal  and  just  representation  is  allowed,  and  a  majority  rules, 
will  peace  and  prosperity  be  restored  to  the  church. 

On  motion,  the  topic  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  State 
of  th3  Church. 

On  motion,  adjourned  until  1:30  p.  m.  Benediction  by  E.  S. 
Chapman. 


SECOND  DAY— AFTEENOON  SESSION. 

Dayton,  Ohio,  May  22,  1878. 

President  B.  F.  Booth  in  the  chair. 

Rev.  S.  W.  Koontz  led  in  prayer. 

The  roll  was  called,  and  it  was  revealed  that  about  ninety  dele- 
gates were  present. 

D.  R.  Miller  moved  that  the  chair  appoint  a  committee  of  seven 
on  unofficial  journalism.     Agreed  to. 

The  president  announced  the  following  committees: 

On  state  of  the  church — W.  McKee,  Z.  "Warner,  A.  Bowman,  J. 
B.  Norman,  E.  Adamson,  H.  Earst,  E.  Light,  J.  Dodds,  D.  W. 
Proffit. 

On  resolutions— D.  R.  Miller,  J.  Cecil,  J.  W.  Fisher,  C.  I.  B. 
Brane,  J.  B.  Kumler,  J.  Knox,  J.  AV.  Nye. 

The  hour  of  10  o'clock  having  arrived,  Rev.  J.  B.  Resler,  vice- 
president,  took  the  chair,  and  Rev.  B.  F  Booth  delivered  the 
opening  address  on  the  first  topic,  "Lay  Delegation." 

B.    F.    booth's    ADDRESS. 

The  subject  of  lay  representation  has  been  agitated  in  the 
LTnited  Brethren  Church  for  a  number  of  years  in  the  past,  and 
without  doubt  has  been  a  subject  of  increasing  interest  to  all  well- 
informed  members,  as  the  subject  has  been  discussed  and  its  mer- 
its presented  both  pro  and  con  in  different  ways  throughout  our 
communion.  The  Rev.  I.  K.  Statton,  chairman  of  the  Commit- 
tee on  Lay  Representation  in  the  General  Conference  of  1873, 
made  the  following  statement  in  connection  with  the  report  sub- 
mitted on  this  subject :  "The  number  of  petitioners  who  prayed 
for. tire  introduction  of  lay  representation  into  our  church  polity 
was  eighteen  hundred  and  thirty-six.  These  names  were  included 
in  forty-three  petitions,  and  came  from  the  people  of  the  various 
conferences  east  and  west. '  The  number  of  petitioners  had 
increased  from  about  five  hundred  in  the  General   Conference  of 


12  UNITED  BRETHREN 

1869  to  over  eii^hteen  hundred  in  the  General  Conference  of  187'-J. 
This  showed    a   large    increase    of    interested    persons  ■  in    the 
space    of    one    quadriennium,   and    this    interest    has    without 
doubt  been  on  a  steady  increase  ever  since,  and  will  increase  until 
lay  representation  is  granted  in  the  General  Conference  as  it  now 
is  in  the  annual  conference,  and  the  rights  of  laj'men  be  duly  rec- 
ognized in  all  departments  of  the  United  Brethren   Church.     So 
far  as  I  am  able  to  learn,  there  is  quite  a  general  influence  in  favor 
of  this  subject,  especially  among  those  who  are  most  interested  in 
the  Avelfare  of  the  church,  and  those  also  who  give   most  largely 
to  the  support  of  the  church  in  all  her  various  interests  and  enter- 
prises.    Men  whose  means  are  liberally  bestowed  to  carry  forward 
the  machiner}'  of  the  church  and   spread  abroad  her  power  for 
good,  feel  keenly  that  they  ought  to  be  represented  in  those  bodies 
that  project  these  enterprises,  and  assist  also  in  the  wise  disposal 
of  their  means  in    the  accomplishing  of  the  greatest  amount  of 
good  in  the    use  of  the  same.     Probably   this    spirit    has   been 
induced  and   augmented  by  the  wholesome   example  set  us  by 
other  religious  denominations — not  only  by  such   denominations 
as  from  the  beginning  made  lay  representation  a  part  of  their 
organic  economy,  but  by  at  least  one  great  and  powerful  denom- 
ination, the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  that  was  compelled  to 
listen  to  the  voice  of  the  iaity  and  incorporate  la}'  representation 
into  their  church  polity  and  government.     It  took  some  time  for 
the  matter  to  be  properly  developed  and  adjusted,  but  it  came  at 
last,  however ;  slow,  it  was  yet  sure.     There  appeared  to  be  grave 
diflSculties  in  the  way,  but  the   voice  of  the  people  was  mighty, 
and  these  difficulties  all   found  satisfactory  adjustment,  and  this 
seemingl}'  strange  plank  was  safelj'  introduced  into  the  platform 
of  this  successful  denomination.     In  considering  this  subject  in 
connection  with  our  denominational   interests,  the  first  thing  to 
be  settled  is,  is  it  right?     Would  it  be  right  that  laymen  be  rep- 
resented, by  laymen  at  least  in   part,  in  the  law-making  depart- 
ment of  the  church  ?  because  this,  from   many  considerations,  is 
the  most  important  body  or  department  of  the  church.     Should 
not  the  laity,  through  lay  representatives,  at  least  hold  the  balance 
of  power  in  the  legislative  department  of  our  church  ?     "Would 
not  laws  enacted  by  such  a  body  have  greater  power  and  influence 
over  those  for  whcse  government  they  are  made  ?   Would  they  not 
present  a  more  powerful  and  satisfactory  face  to  the  governed? 
Would  they  not  be  less  liable  to  suspicion,  and  hence  more  eflt'ect- 
ive  in  their  demands?     Indeed  it  is  but  right  and  ominentl}'  just 
that  the  laity  be  permitted  to  select  from  their  own  ranks  persons 
well  qualified  and  enjoying  their  confidence  to  assist  in  making 
laws  for  their  government.     It  is  not  onlj'  right,  but  it  is  reason- 
able as  well  as  right,  that  this  enfranchisement  be  bestowed  upon 
them.     It  is  reasonable  that  when  they  have   those  of  their  own 
rank,  in  every  way  as  well  qualified  to   make  laws  for  them,  and 
in  whom  they  repose  equal  confidence  as  to  their  integrity,  to  be 


(GENERAL    CONVENTION.  '  13> 

empowered  to   send   saeh  at  their  own   election  to  do  or  help  do 
this  business  for  them.     There   are  2,059  ministers  in  the  entire 
church,  and   148,763  members  (census  1877,  U.  B.  Almanac).     Of 
these  2,051'  ministers,  not  one-half  are  eligible  to  election  as  dele- 
gates to  the  General  Conference;  that  is  to  say,  that  the  repre- 
sentatives in  the  General   Conference  are  to  be  selected  from  less 
than  1,000  of  her  ministers  in  number,     Now  is  it  not  reasonable 
that  these   148,703  members  be  permitted  to  select  at  least  one- 
. third  of  their  delegates  from  the,  at  a  low  estimate,  25,000  mem- 
bers who  would  be   eligible  to   election  as  delegates  to   General 
Conference — to  the  body  that  is  to  frame  laws  for  their  govern- 
ment !     The  competency  of  laymen  to  do  this  work  for  their  con- 
stituency in  a  satisfactory  and  successful  manner  can  not  be  suc- 
cessfully controverted.     They  know  the  wants  and  demands  of 
the  church,  and  have  the  interest  of  the  same  upon  their  hearts. 
Its   demands  grow  largely  out  of  its  reasonableness  and  justice. 
It   gives   representation  where  it  imposes  taxation,  and  this  is 
alwa^'s  considered  just  and  right,  at  least  in  every  republican, 
government.     It  can  not  be  disputed  but  that  the  General  Con- 
ference  projects    important    enterprises,'  to   carry   on    which    it 
requires  large  draws  upon  the  financial  resources  of  the  church, 
and  these  resources  are  almost  exclusively  within  the  hands  of 
the  lait}',  and  froni  them  we  must  expect  the  means  to  carry  on 
the  work,  and  if  they  withhold,  these  undertakings  must  be  ener- 
vated and  at  last  destroyed.     We  should  never  compromise  any 
moral  principle  in  order  to  secure  means  to   carry  forward  any 
church   work,  but   when   righteousness   and  justice   combine  in 
guaranteeing  our  inalienable  right,  it  should  be  freely  and  will- 
ingly granted,  and  thus  do  that  which  is  right,  and  secure  thereby 
the  end  after  which  we  are  seeking.     Our  people  are  liberal  and 
willing  to  assist  with  their  money  in^all  the  good  interests  of  the 
church,  but  if  this  right  be  ignored  and  refused  we  can  not  other- 
wise expect  but  that  the  time  will  come  when  they  will  not  sup- 
port so   liberally,  simply   because  they  are  not  heard  and  their 
rights  and  privileges  honored.     The  very  genius  of  the  govern- 
ment of  this   church   is  republican,  in  which  the  rights  of  both 
ministers  and  laymen  are  carefully  guarded.     Throughout  it  i& 
designed  that  the  people  here  shall  rule,  and  that  the  power  to 
govern  be  vested  in  the  people.     To  be  consistent  with  this  gen- 
eral tenor  of  the  church  we  should  admit  laymen  into  the  highest 
body  within  her  economy.     What  would  the  citizens  of  Ohio  think 
if  the  legislature  of  the  state  would   declare  that  no  one  but  a 
professional  lawyer  should  be  eligible  as  a  senator  or  representa- 
tive in  the  state  ?  or  that  only  one  single  class  in  the  state  should 
enjoy  this  privilege  and  honor?     The  citizens  of  the  state  would 
not  long    suffer   such  a  violation    of    their   rights    to    continue. 
It   would   be  a  grave   invasion  of  their   rights  as   citizens  of  a 
republican   commonwealth.     It  would  be  fairly  construed  as  an 
unrighteous  discrimination  in  favor  of  a  single   class  of  individ- 


14  UNITED  BRETHREN 

uals  to  the  disadvantage  of  all  others.  To  say  no  one  shall  be 
permitted  to  represent  the  members  of  this  church  but  ministers 
in  her  legislative  halls,  partakes  largely  of  this  spirit  of  discrim- 
ination, and  is  hence  not  consistent  with  the  spirit  and  genius  of 
her  government.  While  I  believe  it  is  proper  for  ministers  to 
have. at  least  one-half  or  more  of  the  representatives,  it  is  equally 
proper  that  the  laity  enjoy  the  other  part.  Probably  the  greatest 
and  most  important  demand  for  lay  representation  in  the  United 
Brethren  Church  arises  out  of  the  happy  effects  it  would  produce 
in  bringing  all  the  powers  of  the  church  into  closer  union  and 
sympathy  in  all  of  her  great  interests  intended  for  her  rapid 
advancement  in  the  work  of  doing  good  and  glorifying  God  our 
heavenly  Father.  It  will  strengthen  the  confidence  and  sanctifj' 
that  union  of  heart  and  hand  that  should  exist  in  all  depart  ments 
of  denominational  work  and  among  all  classes  in  her  commu  nion. 
"We  have  able  and  intelligent  laymen  all  over  the  church  who 
would  make  efficient  representatives  of  the  people  in  any  body 
•  or  position  of  the  church  to  which  they  might  be  called,  and 
placing  them  in  positions  of  honor  and  trust  would  tend  to 
greatly  strengthen  the  common  ties  that  should  bind  us  together. 
Jt  would  give  the  laity  a  better  opportunity  to  learn  our  wants,  and 
to  go  out  and  enlist  the  hearty  co-operation  of  all  classes  of  the 
church  in  promoting  her  enterprises.  We  constantly  need  and 
must  have  the  financial  means  which  are  in  the  hands  of  our 
membership  to  keep  up  and  enlarge  the  borders  of  our  Zion.  All 
our  institutions  are  in  the  want  of  help,  and  always  will  be,  and 
the  main  portion  for  their  support  must  be  drawn  from  the  pri- 
vate ranks  of  the  church,  and  hence  it  is  our  duty  to  enlarge 
their  ftrivileges  and  thus  encourage  their  zeal  and  liberality  in 
the  same.  There  appears  to  be  upon  the  part  of  some  a  fear  that 
if  we  grant  this  right  to  the  laity  they  will  become  dominant  and 
unruly,  and  hence  the  measure  would  give  the  church  trouble. 
This  is  merely  an  unjust  fancy,  and  has  no  foundation  in  reason, 
religion,  or  fact.  If  we  distrust  them,  is  it  not  reasonable  to 
expect  that  they  will  distrust  us?  And  if  this  i)roduces  such 
effects  on  the  laity,  with  only  a  part  of  the  representation,  what 
is  to  be  reasonably  expected  it  will  produce  on  the  ministry  when 
they  possess  the  entire  privilege  of  representation  ?  As  a  class 
the  laity  are  just  as  trustworthy  and  honorable  as  the  ministrj-. 
And  what  will  produce  distrust  in  one  will  produce  it  also  in  the 
other.  So  far  as  is  possible,  we  should  seek  to  remove  all  grounds 
of  distrust,  and  thus  increase  the  confidence  mutually  among  us. 
We  must  not  encourage  a  spirit  of  distrust,  but  the  spirit  of  con- 
fidence, love,  and  sympathy.  This  end  will  be  promoted  by  bring- 
ing the  different  classes  together  in  the  different  bodies  of  the 
church,  and  in  doing  so  more  fully  make  the  interest  of  one  the 
common  interest  of  all.  We  need  to  bo  fellow-helpers  to  the 
truth  and  co-workers  together  as  a  religious  denomination.  But 
the   question    may  be    asked,  Has   not   lay   representation  been 


GENERAL  CONVENTIOX.  15 

already  provided  for  to  a  sufficient  extent  by  the  act  of  the  last 
General  Conference  granting  the  privilege  to  each  annual  confer- 
ence of  allowing  each  field  of  labor  within  their  bounds  to  elect 
a  delegate  to  rej)resewt  them  in  that  body?  The  power  to  grant 
this  exists  in  the  bosom  of  the  annual  conference.  They  may,  by 
a  two-third  vote,  grant  each  field  of  labor  this  privilege  within 
their  respective  bounds.  This,  however,  may  not  be  granted  by 
a  two-third  vote,  and  hence  such  annual  conference  will  have  no 
such  representation. .  It  is  quite  probable  that  there  are  confer- 
ences that  will  not  grant  it,  or  what  is  equivalent,  will  purposely 
neglect  it.  And  if  the  annual  conference  does  not  grant  it  the 
laity  can  not  have  it.  This  can  not  satisfy  the  reasonable  demand 
of  the  members  of  our  church  for  representation  to  all  the  con- 
ferences of  the  church  without  being  contingent  upon  the  will  of 
the  annual  conference.  As  an  individual  I  accept  the  above  pro- 
vision as  a  wholesome  step  in  the  right  direction,  and  one  that 
will  be  attended  with  excellent  results,  but  it  does  not  reach  to 
that  extent  that  it  should  in  granting  representation  to  the  laity 
in  the  General  Conference  of  the  church,  which  they  ask  for.  It 
is  in  the  body  that  makes  the  laws  that  the  laity  are  more  inter- 
ested than  in  any  other.  While  it  may  not  be  the  right  and  priv- 
ilege of  farmers  and  mechanics  to  hold  a  position  in  the  legal  or 
judiciary  departments  of  the  state,  it  is  clearly  their  right  and 
privilege  to  bo  eligible  to  a  seat  in  the  legislature  as  well  as  law- 
yers, judges,  or  doctors.  Every  citizen  of  the  state  here  stands 
on  equal  footing,  no  impediment  being  in  the  way  of  a  seat  there 
but  the  want  of  the  suffrages  of  their  fellow-citizens.  While  at 
least  seeming  objections  might  be  urged  against  lay  representa- 
tion in  the  annual  conference,  no  valid  nor  reasonable  objection 
can  be  urged  against  it  in  the  General  Conference.  In  our  pres- 
ent system  of  representation  in  the  Ge-neral  Conference,  one-third 
should  be  laymen ;  that  is,  two  clerical  and  one  lay  delegate  from 
each  annual  conference.  But  upon  the  adoption  of  j;ro  rata  rep- 
resentation this  proportion  should  undergo  a  change  also,  so  as 
to  make  the  representation  between  the  two  classes  as  nearly 
equal  as  possible.  A  conference  sending  three  delegates,  one  lay- 
man to  two  ministers,  in  a  conference  sending  four  delegates,  two 
laymen  and  two  ministers,  each  annual  conference  being  allowed 
at  least  one  lay  and  ministerial  delegate.  I  think  the  object 
should  be  to  make  the  representation  throughout  as  nearly  equal 
as  possible,  upon  the  basis  of  a  pro  rata  allowance  from  each  con- 
ference district.  It  may  be  asked  by  persons  w^ho  are  anxious  to 
see  the  rights  of  the  laity  in  this  matter  regarded,  What  shall  we 
do,  or  what  can  be  done,  to  secure  this  en-d?  The  power  now  is 
in  the  breast  of  the  General  Conference,  and  it  is  made  up 
entirely  of  ministerial  delegates,  and  they  may  continue  to  hold 
the  power  in  their  own  hands,  and  refuse  to  hear  us  and  grant 
our  requests.  It  is  proper  for  the  laity  to  speak  out  plainly  their 
sentiments,  and  urge  the  propriety  and   righteousness  of  their 


16  UNITED  BRETHREN 

cause.  Hold  meetings  in  each  society,  and  confer  freely  with 
each  other  upon  the  subject.  It  Avould  also  have  a  good  eft'ect  for 
those  who  favor  this  end  to  meet  together  in  conventions  judi- 
ciously held,  and  not  only  discuss  the  subject,  but  pass  resolutions 
cnibodj'ing  your  sentiments  and  views.  Send  these  papers  to  the 
annual  conferences,  Avhere  they  would  be  discussed  and  passed 
upon,  and  new  interest  elicited.  Send  these,  with  petitions  as 
largely  signed  as  possible,  to  General  Conference,  where  they  will 
not  be  lightly  pushed  aside.  Bring  all  your  views  as  well 
embodied  as  possible  before  this  body.  These  conventions  might 
be  held  in  each  presiding-elder  district  or  annual  conference,  and 
probably  it  would  be  wise  in  a  general  convention  to  bring 
together  the  leading  persons  in  this  movement  from  all  parts  of 
the  church  for  general  counsel  and  concerted  action.  1  do  not 
think  that  when  there  is  a  general  expression  clearl}^  given  in 
this  direction  that  the  General  Conference  will  refuse  to  give  it 
that  attention  and  action  which  its  gravity  demands. 

Recapitulation  of  the  Subject. 

1.  It  is  just  and  right,  and  justice  and  righteousness  are 
always  demanded. 

2.  It  is  demanded  because  the  genius  of  the  church  govern- 
ment approves  of  it.  It  is  a  republican  church,  governed  by  the 
people,  where  the  rights  of  the  humblest  are  to  be  regarded. 

3.  It  would  tend  to  the  harmony  and  success  ot  the  church. 
In  union  there  is  power. 

4.  It  would  enlarge  the  interest  of  the  laity  in  our  general 
church  work,  and  hence  bring  them  more  fully  to  their  support. 

5.  It  would  tend  to  unify  the  church,  and  bring  the  ministry 
and  laity  into  closer  sympathy  with  each  other. 

6.  It  would  develop  and  utilize  the  intelligence,  piety,  and 
power  of  the  laity. 

Z.  In  every  way  it  would  do  good,  both  to  the  ministry  and 
laity,  and  largely  increase  the  effectiveness  ol  the  church's  work 
in  all  of  her  departments. 

LAY    DEI.EdATION. 

J.Morrison  said:  3Ir.  Chairman, — It  is  said  that  an  iilea  is 
never  felt  until  it  is  voted  down.  This  one  has  been  voted  down 
by  some  of  the  conferences,  especially  the  wonderfully  loyal  one 
of  which  I  am  a  member.  But  there  are  some  members  of  that 
conference  who  are  not  afraid  of  the  brain,  good  sense,  and  money 
of  the  laymen.  Is  it  the  money  of  the  laymen  they  fear?  No; 
it  is  the  brain  and  intellect  found  in  the  laiety  of  the  church  that 
they  dread.  The  opposers  say  that  laymen  do  not  want  repre- 
sentation. When  a  heathen  showed  Augustine  his  idol,  saying, 
"This  is  my  god ;  where  is  yours?"  Augustine  said,  "I  did  not 
show  him  my  God,  not  because  I  had  none  to  show,  but  because 
he  had  no  eyes  to  see."     A  minister  in  the  United  Brethren  Church 


GENERAL  CONVENTION.  17 

in  America  must  be  blind  if  be  does  not  Icnow  that  taxation  with- 
out just  representation  is  not  of  this  land  and  age.  People  gen- 
erally find  what  they  look  for.  I  am  looking  for  pro  rata  repre- 
sentation. I  expect  to  find  it.  1  am  looking  for  la}'  delegation, 
and  that  in  the  law-making  department  of  this  church.  I  expect 
to  find  it.  I  am  looking  foi'ward  to  the  time  when  the  men  whose 
money  support  this  church  shall  have  a  voice  in  it,  and  a  right  to 
say  where  and  how  it  shall  be  managed.  And  if  argument,  jus- 
tice, and  scripture  will  not  convince  and  convert  the  opposers, 
there  is  no  way  in  which  the  laymen  can  malce  themselves  known 
and  felt.  It  is  the  intellect  and  money  of  the  church  that  want 
lay  delegation.  It  is  the  ignorant  Eoman  Catholic  that  is  willing 
to  be  priest-ridden  and  taxed  without  representation.  As  a  church 
we  can  not  afi^brd  to  deprive  the  laymen.  "Who  pays  the  preacher, 
the  missionary,  the  elder,  church-erection  fund?  Monej' to  the 
church  is  as  blood  to  the  system.  Shall  we  think  of  the  stream 
and  despise  the  fountain?  Ecclesiastical  convulsions  now  felt  by 
the  great  heart-beat  of  the  church,  demanding  a  just  representa- 
tion, will,  by  and  by,  like  geological  upheavings,  usher  in  a  new 
and  better  state  of  affairs  in  this  church.  A  fire,  kindled  in  the 
bosom  of  the  earth,  will  continue  to  burn,  if  it  gets  vent,  and  if 
it  does  not  get  vent  it  will  tear  the  earth  open  with  its  volcanic 
thunders.  The  fire  of  just  representation  has  been  kindled  in  the 
bosom  of  the  church,  and  if  it  gets  vent  in  the  legislative  depart- 
ment iL  will  continue  to  burn  and  refine  until  each  member  shall 
feel  that  he  has  in  his  right  arm  the  strength  of  ten  giants  to 
work  for  God  and  this  church.  Xo  American  would  be  afraid  to 
trust  the  Americans  to  decide  the  political  issues  of  the  day,  ana 
no  United  Brethren  minister  should  be  afraid  to  trust  the  laity 
of  this  church  to  decide,  by  vote,  the^  question  that  agitates  us 
now,  and  he  who  is  afraid  of  the  laity  ought  to  step  down  and  out. 
Rev.  A.  Rose  said:  I  see  two  difficulties  in  the  way  of  lay  del- 
egation: First,  the  diversity  of  interpretation  of  the  constitu- 
tion; secondl}',  the  apathy  of  a  large  part  of  the  laity  regarding 
it.  The  duty  of  friends  of  lay  delegation  is,  b}'  every  legitimate 
means,  to  jDresent  the  subject  to  the  people,  fairly  discussing  it, 
and  showing  its  reasonableness  and  propriety.  They  will  soon 
come  to  its  favor,  and  then  the  constitutional  question  will  be  ob- 
viated. I  would  deprecate  any  violent  course  in  regard  to  thi.'^  or 
any  other  measure  of  church  polity,  and  I  believe  that  argument 
and  light  to  the  minds  of  our  laity  will  accomplish  any  needed 
reform.  The  advocacy  of  this  measure  in  the  spirit  of  Christ  will 
make  its  impress,  and  sooner  or  later  the  intelligence  of  the  church 
w^U  accomplish  tliis  desirable  change,  which  will  bring  to  our 
councils  the  talent  and  to  our  treasuries  the  money  of  the  laj^men. 
Give  our  laymen  a  voice  and  a  vote  in  the  legislation  of  the 
church  and  the  disbursement  of  the  money,  and  you  will  acquire 
an  element  of  strength  which  we  now  greatly  need. 


18  UNITED  BRETHREN 

He  was  followed  by  Z.  Warner,  J.  Dodds,  Wm.  McKee,  H.  Garst, 
J.  W.  Fisher,  E.  Adamson,  D.  il.  Miller,  J.  B.  Kuraler,  J.  B.  Ees- 
ler,  S.  S.  Holden,  G.  W._Weekly,  A.  IJose,  D.  L.  Rike. 

On  motion,  the  topic  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  State 
of  the  Church. 

The  Chair  announced  the  Committee  on  Independent  Journal- 
ism as  follows:  J.  S.  Mills,  G.  W.  M.  Pugor,  A.  Eose,  I.  Crouse, 
J.  Morrison,  E.  Light,  J   Applegate. 

The  fifth  topic,  "  The  United  Brethren  Church  in  its  Essential 
Principles  of  Government,"  was  discused  by  Eev.  E.  Light. 

THE  UNITED  BRETHREN  CHURCH  IN  ITS  ESSENTIAL  PRINCIPLES  OF  GOV- 
ERNMENT, BY  E.  LKUIT. 

Note.— Oratorical  figures  in  the  oral  address,  which  do  not  add  to  the  clearness  of  the 
ideas,  liave  been  left  out  of  the  printed  address  to  give  room  for  expansion  of  the  other 
part  not  so  fully  treated  before  the  convention.  That  we  have  correctly  defined  the  rehi- 
lation  of  government  to  the  church,  I  have  since  convinced  myself  more  fully  by  a  brief 
examination  of  the  parable  of  the  leaven  as  a  symbol  of  like  import  with  that  of  the  mus- 
tard-seed. (See  sermon-brief  by  John  Cliflbrd  in  the  ."^innoiiizir,  published  by  J.  C.  Ham- 
berger,  Lebanon,  Pennsylvanip.) 

The  proper  treatment  of  this  topic  involves  a  philsophical  dis- 
cussion. The  essential  principles  of  a  government  of  any  organ- 
ism are  the  interior  and  exterior  relations  which  determine  and 
limit  the  government  of  that  organism.  Essential  principals,  it 
may  help  our  discussion  to  say,  are  not  directly  revealed  to  fallen 
human  beings.  They  lie  too  near  the  great  first  cause  to  be  ap- 
proached abruptly.  In  nature,  as  in  religion,  we  come  first  to  the 
outer  court,  then  to  the  holy  place,  and  lastly  to  the  holy  of  holies. 
In  the  innermost  sanctuary  of  nature  we  stand  face  to  face  with 
God,  and  for  such  a  revelation  we  are  not  meet.  No  doubt  Adam 
was  granted  a  direct,  immediate  apprehension  of  the  determining, 
governing  princijoles  of  nature.  To  him  God  brought  every  beast 
of  the  field  and  every  fowl  of  the  air,  and  whatsoever  Adam 
called  every  livir.g  creature  that  was  the  name  thereof,  and  that 
name  corresponded  with  the  nature  thereof.  Adam  apprehended 
then  directly  the  inner  relations  of  nature.  With  the  loss  of 
liis  first  estate  went  Adam's  exalted  j)rivilcge;  and  now  we  may 
approach  the  tree  of  knowledge  of  good  and  evil  in  the  midst  of 
the  garden  only  as  we  approach  a  meetness  lor  immortal  life. 
Onlj^  as  we  regain  what  man  lost  in  the  fall  may  we  know  aught 
of  the  hidden  life  of  nature.  In  short,  man  is  morally  incapacitated 
for  a  direct  revelation  of  the  ultimate  force  in  nature.  For  ex- 
ample, God  casts  forth  a  seed,  but  he  docs  not  reveal  to  us  the  or- 
der and  character  of  its  develo])ment.  The  sun,  which  shines 
upon  it,  the  descending  rain  and  dew,  the  surrounding  air,  the 
soil  into  which  it  has  fallen,  and,  al)0ve  all,  its  own  inherent  na- 
ture, these  several!}',  and  their  influence  jointly,  must  yield  a 
knowledge  of  the  essential  principles  of  its  growth  and  multipli- 
cation. 


GENERAL    CONVENTION.  19 

It  is  the  same  in  respect  to  the  government  of  the  church.  The 
anology  is  set  forth  in  the  following  words  of  Christ:  "The 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  like  to  a  grain  of  mustard-seed,  which  a  man 
took,  and  sowed  in  his  field  :  which  is  indeed  the  least  of  all  seeds : 
but  when  it  is  grow^n,  it  is  the  greatest  among  herbs,  and  becom- 
eth  a  tree,  so  that  the  birds  of  the  air  come  and  lodge  in  the 
branches  thereof"  Matt.  xiii.  31,  32.  The  church  of  Christ  on 
earth  is  in  its  outward  beginning  small;  it  shall  grow  and  be- 
come the  shelter  of  souls  which  "  escape  as  birds  out  of  the  snare 
of  the  fowler."     (Ps.  cxxiv.  7.) 

Parentheticallj'  it  may  be  stated  that  we  have  been  somewhat 
particular  as  to  the  kind  of  birds  we  allowed  to  lodge  on  our 
branch  of  the  tree.  Some  kinds,  we  have  thought,  ought  to  be 
refused  a  place.  Fit  they  were  for  the  tree  it  was  true,  but  not 
exactly  for  our  branch  of  it.  Clean,  they  were,  but  speckled  nev- 
theless.  They  might,  therefore,  go  to  some  other  branch,  up  to- 
ward the  to})  among  the  smaller  ones,  or  down  toward  the  trunk 
among  the  larger  ones,  and  there  we  would  call  them  xcelcome. 
Now  we  are  here  to  speak  a  word  for  these  birds  that  are  clean, 
and  have  a  right  to  the  tree  any  where  at  all,  and  think  we'll 
show,  before  we  are  through,  that  all  birds  which  are  earnestly 
endeavoring  to  escape  the  snare  of  the  fowlers  have  a  right,  hy 
the  providential  charter  of  the  church,  to  lodge  on  our  branch 
of  Christ's  large  mustard-tree. 

The  kingdom  of  heaven,  like  the  seed  of  a  plant,  develops  not 
by  any  order  or  method  revealed  in  God's  word,  or  any  laws  or 
i-egulations  imposed  upon  it  by  an  ecclesiastical  congress,  but  in 
a  way  which  accords  : 

1.  With  the  nature  of  the  seed. 

2.  With  the  character  of  the  soil  into  which  it  has  fallen, 

3.  With  the  measure  of  its  expos'are  to  the  Sun  of  Righteous- 
ness. 

4.  With  the  surrounding  spiritual  influences. 

5.  With  the  descending  rain  and  dew  of  heavenly  grace. 
And  from   these   conditions  we  shall   ascertain  the   principles 

which  govern  the  Church  of  Christ.  It  is  well ;  for  had  Christ 
revealed  unto  us  more  in  respect  to  the  government  of  his  church 
we  should  have  lost  the  benefit  of  our  inquiries.  Indeed,  we  must 
question  the  possibility  of  a  revelation  of  an  efticient  church  j)ol- 
ity  other  than  that  which  we  have  in  the  conditions  named.  To 
ascertain  from  these  the  order  and  progress  of  the  church's  growth, 
is  to  acquire  a  culture  which  could  not  have  been  obtained  oth- 
erwise. Think  what  all  it  involves  to  get  a  clear  apprehension  of 
the  principles  of  church  government  in  these  circumstances  !  You 
must  know  something  of  the  germ  from  w^hich  the  church  is  to 
grow ;  you  must  know  something  of  the  times  and  the  people 
among  which  it  is  to  spring  up  and  develop;  you  must  know 
something  of  the  influences  by  which  its  growth  is  promoted  or 
retarded;  you  must  know  these  and  other  things,  not  only  the- 


20  UNITED    BRETHREN 

oreticall}'  or  mentally,  but  some  of  them  experimentalh',  before 
you  can  determine  the  government  of  the  church. 

The  seed,  the  field  into  ^Yhich  the  man  sowed  it,  its  g-rowth  into 
a  large  tree,  with  branches  to  correspond,  to  which  the  birds  of 
the  air  came  and  lodged  therein,  these  plainly  indicate  the  devel- 
opment of  the  church  from  a  small  germinal  beginning,  the  extent 
of  her  growth,  and  the  purpose  of  her  existence.  There  must  be 
an  immense  potency  in  the  small  seed ;  it  must  be  partly,  at  least, 
indigenous  to  the  soil  into  which  it  has  fallen,  and  the  external 
conditions  are  at  least  not  sufficiently  adverse  to  prevent  its  de- 
velopment into  a  large  tree.  These  features  are  suggested  by  the 
parable  as  belonging  to  the  Church  of  Christ  and  her  surround- 
ings on  earth.  The  conditions  under  which  the  church  shall 
grow  up  and  fulfill  her  mission  are  indicated,  and  to  these  her 
government  is  to  be  adapted;  hence  looking  at  the  Church  of 
Christ  in  her  infancy,  as  presented  in  the  gospel  history,  we  note 
the  absence  of  revealed  governmental  provisions,  except  in  the 
'Case  of  personal  transpass  against  a  brother,  otherwise  the  life  of 
'the  seed  which  Christ  had  sown  was  left  to  an  altogether  untram- 
.•meled  growth.  The  primitive  Christians  furnished  disciplinary  reg- 
■  iilations  and  adopted  measures  of  polit}-  as  the  requirements  of  the 
time  and  occasion,  under  the  light  and  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
rmight  suggest.  In  the  matter  of  forms  they  followed  closel}-  the 
jprovisions  of  the  Jewish  economy,  as  the  early  appointment  of 
•deacons  and  elders,  with  the  assignment  of  their  respective  duties, 
-i-learly  evinces.  They  rose,  indeed,  but  graduall}'  to  the  concep- 
tion that  the  new  wine  should  be  borne  in  new  bottles  ;  that  the 
Christian  Church  should  be  anything  else  but  a  renewed  and 
quickened  form  of  Judiasm,  ana  so  far  as  old  forms  were  adequate 
to  convey  the  new  life,  thej^  w^ere  retained.  Their  church  govern- 
>ment  took  shape  from  within  as  modified  b}' requisitions  from 
■without,  like  as  the  form  of  a  plant  is  determined  b}'  the  nature 
vof  its  seed  and  the  soil  and  climate  in  which  it  grows. 

Vfe  need  not  consume  time  referring  to  the  instances  of  church 
'government  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  notably  to  the  fifteenth 
chapter,  illustrating  the  principles  we  have  enunciated.  We  ven- 
ture, rather,  to  say  that  there  is  not  an  instance  of  church  gov- 
ernment in  the  days  of  the  apostles  wliich  does  not  illustrate  these 
principles. 

Anology  and  history  accordingly  combine  to  indicate  the  foUow- 
inc  principles  of  government  as  applicable  to  the  Church  of  Christ 
from  the  beginning: 

1.  In  form  it  was  developed  from  divine  inner  life. 

2.  In  the  a])propriations  of  rules  and  regulations  it  had  regard 
to  the  exigencies  of  time,  occasion,  and  circumstances,  produc- 
iujj  thus: 

i>.     A  polity  molded  by  the  conjoint  re([uirements  of: 

(1.)     The  divine  inner  life. 

(2.)     The  exigencies  of  external  conditions. 

{?>.)     The  end  for  which  the  church  was  planted. 


GENERAL    CONVENTION.  21 

To  realize  the  development,  from  these  principles,  of  an  ever- 
perfecting  Christianity  upon  earth,  is  the  great  mission  of  the 
vissible  Church  of  Christ,  as  represented  in  the  different  Christian 
denominations.  Many  and  varied  are  the  agencies  and  influences 
which  contribute  to  the  accomplishment  of  this  mission,  and  this 
fact  might  warrant  the  concession  that  the  many  different  Chris- 
tian denominations  answer  a  divinely  appointed  purpose.  And 
conceding  so  much,  we  are  obliged  to  concede  also  a  distinctive 
purpose  for  each  separate  denomination — the  purpose,  perhaps,  of 
developing  pre-eminently  a  particular  phase  of  Christianit}',  with 
adaptation  to  particular  external  demands.  If  essentially  and  in- 
trinsically distinct,  then  these  several  denominations  must,  in 
their  normal  and  proper  development,  be  subject  to  essentially 
distinct  phases  of  doctrine  or  principles  of  government,  or  both. 
And  what  are  the  essentially  distinct  principles  of  government  of 
the  United  Brethren  Church  ?  'This  question  as  applied  to  any 
Christian  denomination  must  be  determined,  according  to  our 
method  of  induction,  by  the  particular  providential  caste  of  that 
denomination.  Ever}'  seed  God  has  so  ordained  in  religion  as  in 
nature  is  subject  in  its  development  to  the  laws  of  its  kind,  and 
80  we  must  ascertain  from  its  germinal  conditions  what  is  essen- 
tially distinct  in  a  Christian  denomination. 

And  the  germinal  conditions  of  the  United  Brethren  in  Christ, 
what  were  tbey?     Undoubted!}' — 

1.  The  need  of  the  times  in  prosjject  to  experimental  reljgion, 
and  a  practical  Christianity. 

2.  The  requirement  of  tolerance  in  every  thing  else. 

Contemporaneous  history  is  conclusive  in  its  testimony  con- 
cerning the  religious  declension  which  prevailed  in  the  churches 
of  the  Reformation,  and  the  Dunkards  and  Mennonites,  which 
were  the  principal  Protestant  denominations  of  the  time  and 
place  from  which  the  United  Brethren  in  Christ  date  their 
origin  as  a  Christian  denomination.  They  would  tolerate  in 
ecclesiastic.il  forms  and  confessions  each  respectively  only  its 
own  views.  In  practical  life  they  would  tolerate  any  thing 
but  a  prayer-meeting  and  a  godly  life  and  conversation.  And 
thus  the  new  world  in  those  regions  wagged  toward  hell  under 
the  weight  o'  a  dead  ecclesiasticism,  made  up  of  religious  denom- 
inations in  which  bigotry  and  lifeless  forms  held  undisputed  sway. 
(See  Hist.  Ev.  Association,  p.  14-,  Ger.  ed.)  These  conditions  gave 
origin  to  the  United  Brethren  in  Christ.  In  their  absence  there 
would  have  been  no  occasion  for  .the  rise  of  our  church.  Had  the 
doctrines  nominally  held  by  the  Protestant  denominations  of  that 
day  been  urged  to  their  ligitimate  issues  in  a  Christian  experience 
and  life,  or  had  those  denominations  tolerated  the  new  life  and 
holy  zeal  which  God  had  awakened  in  the  fathers  of  our  church, 
the  United  Brethren  in  Christ  would  never  have  been  known  as 
a  religious  denomination. 


22  UNITED    BRETHREN 

In  proof  of  this  view  respecting  the  originating  conditions  of 
our  church,  we  urge: 

1.  The  character  of  the  fathers'  preaching.  They  chose  for 
their  texts  such  scriptui*e  passages  as  had  immediate  and  mostly 
exclusive  bearing  either  on  Christian  experience  or  Christian  lib- 
erty. "Ye  must  be  born  again."  "  If  the  Son  therefore  make 
you  free,  ye  are  free  indeed."  "  If  any  man  be  in  Christ,  he  is  a 
new  creature;  old  things  are  passed  away;  behold,  all  things 
are  become  new."  "  Stand  fast  therefore  in  the  liberty  where- 
with Christ  hath  made  you  free."  Such  and  other  texts  bearing 
on  repentance,  conversion,  and  consequent  freedom  from  sin,  were 
almost  exclusively  preached  by  the  fathers  of  our  church. 

2.  We  urge  the  character  of  their  association.  This  was  ut- 
terly heterogeneous  every  way  except  in  its  basil,  inherent  qual- 
ities of  experience  and  life,  in  which  alone  it  professed  unity  and 
homogeneit3\  There  were  Lutherans,  Eeformed,  Mennonites, 
Dunkards,  Armish,  and  others,  whose  Christian  experience  and 
holy  aspirings  formed  an  inward  spiritual  union  between  them  as 
real  as  they  were  diverse  in  outward  appearance  and  churchly  ob- 
servances. 

3.  We  urge  the  name  which  the  company  of  believers  thus 
drawn  together  assumed  when  they  called  themselves  the  "  United 
Brethren  in  Christ."  The  event  which  first  suggested  the  name 
is  known  to  us  all.  At  a  jn'otracted  meeting  in  I^ancaster  County, 
Pennsylvania,  Otterbein  was  so  moved  by  the  power  of  the 
gospel  as  preached  b}'  Boehm,  that  at  the  close  of  the  discourse, 
before  the  latter  had  time  to  sit  down,  he  fell  on  Boehm's  neck, 
and  exclaimed  with  holy  joy,  "We  are  brethren  I  "  The  historian 
states  that  because  the  name  of  the  Moravians  was  "  United 
Brethren,"  the  clause  "in  Christ"  was  added  to  distinguish  the 
two.  But  behind  the  supposed  immediate  cause  was  the  remotely 
guiding  hand  of  Providence,  b}-  whose  ordaining  the  church  ob- 
tained a  name  indicative  of  its  original  God-appointed  caste.  The 
import  of  the  name  is  union  in  Christ  and  tolerance  of  diversity 
in  all  things  else.  Did  not  God  in  his  providence  cause  the 
words  "  in  Christ"  to  be  added,  that  the  name  might  acquire  a 
significance  in  accord  with  the  original  character  and  mission  of 
the  church?     Yea,  verilj*. 

The  originating  conditions  of  the  church  being  thus  ascertained, 
let  us  derive  from  these  the  essential  principles  of  her  government. 
The  original  polity  of  the  church  was  a  normal  outgrowth  from 
these  germinal  conditions.  The  fathers  copied  exceedingly  little 
from  other  churches  in  the  matter  of  church  government ;  hence 
ours  is  neither  a  Presbyterian  nor  an  Episcopalian,  itinerant  nor 
3^et  a  Congregational  system  of  government,  and  only  in  a  certain 
sense  an  eclecticism.  It  is  a  devclo^^ment  in  kind  similar  to  that 
which  produced  the  polity  of  the  primitive  church.  It  grew 
naturally  out  of  the  occasions  which  conditioned  the  rise  and 
progress  of  the  church.       It  is  a  plant  indigenous  to  the  soil  in 


GENERAL    CONVENTION.  26 

which  it  grew,  and  it  assumed  that  form  wliich  was  natural  to  the 
seed  from  which  it  sprung.  It  did  not  include  a  strict  itinerancy, 
else  Otterbein  was  not  to  continue  a  leading  representative.  It 
was  not  an  episcopacy,  its  so-called  bishops  being  ever  onl}^  su- 
perintendents. It  was  never  a  Congregationalism,  inasmuch  as 
its  congregations  were  never  properly  self-governing.  It  was  not 
Presbyterian  either  in  the  matter  of  representation  or  yet  in  ec- 
clesiastical supervision.  It  was  a  normally  progressive  polity 
which  the  church  assumed  in  the  beginning,  and  none  other  is 
legitimate.  By  a  normal  polit}^  I  understand  one  which  grows 
out  of  the  nature  of  and  remains  organically  connected  with  the 
origin  of  the  church.  By  a  progressive  polity  I  understand  one 
which  accommodates  itself  in  a  true  and  proper  sense  to  the  prog- 
ress of  events.  B}'  a  normally  jjrogressive  polity  I  understand  one 
which  grows  naturall}'  out  of  the  originating  conditions  of  the 
church,  with  such  modifications  and  adaptations  as  will  keep  her 
constantl}^  effective  for  the  accomplishment  of  the  work  for  which 
she  Avas  raised  up  of  God. 

Such  a  polity  involves  really  but  one  fundamental,  determining 
and  limiting  principle  of  government,  which  has  for  its  general 
requisition  that  such  government  be  always  made  to  aid,  and  at 
no  time  allowed  to  hinder  the  normal  growth  of  the  church ; 
that  is  to  say,  the  government  exists  for  the  church  and  not  the 
church  for  the  government.  Whatever  provision  affects  the  church 
contrary  to  the  requirement  of  this  principle  must  be  regarded  as 
obnoxious  to  her  proper  government,  and  as  something  that  should 
be  removed  or  changed.  And  if  we  have  correctly  designated  the 
character  and  purpose  of  the  United  Brethren  Church,  this  fun- 
demental  principle  imposes  upon  her  government  the  following 
requisitions : 

1.  To  aid' the  church's  growth  by  .seeking  to  preserve  in  vigor, 
and  to  protect  against  danger,  the  life  of  the  church  as  germinally 
contained  in  and  flowing  from  a  truly  Christian  experience  of  her 
members. 

2.  To  aid  her  growth  b}"  seeking  to  adjust  exterior  relations  to 
the  normal  tendencies  and  the  freest  possible  development  of  this 
life,  preserving  thus  the  order  of  her  growth  and  the  reach  of  her 
fellowship,  her  catholicit}'. 

These  two  requisitions  constitute  the  two  essential  principles 
of  government  in  the  church  of  the  United  Brethren  in  Christ. 
They  must  determine  and  limit  said  government,  and  by  them 
all  its  provisions  must  be  tested.  Any  substantial  departure  from 
them  in  any  feature  of  her  government  must  be  regarded  as 
abnormal  and  obstructive  of  her  proper,  healthful  growth. 

The  first  principle  regulates  mainly  points  of  doctrine;  the  sec- 
ond, matters  of  polity.  To  both  of  them,  especially  the  latter, 
the  church's  "confession  of  faith"  conforms.  It  provides  for  the 
protection  of  her  life,  in  a  measure,  but  more  fully  for  its  unob- 
structed  development   and   the   preservation  of  her   catholicity, 


24  UNITED    BRETHREN 

adding  for  this  purpose  to  the  last  article  adopted,  concerning  the 
''  ordinances,"  an  item  of  church  polity — namel}',  a  provision 
enforcing  tolerance  (C.  H.  vol.  2,  p.  43,  and  Dis. ,  p.  lo). 

As  for  other  measures  of  polity  adopted  by  the  fathers,  outside 
of  the  "  constitution,"  they  may  be  said  to  bear  general)}'  unmis- 
takable marks  of  a  natural  outgrowth  of  the  determinina;  and 
limiting  conditions  of  the  church's  government,  as  set  forth  in  the 
essential  principles  named.  The  manner  in  which  the  church 
gradually  assumed  an  organized  existence;  the  relation  of  the 
local  ministry  to  what  was  called  the  itinerancy  in  those  primi- 
tive days;  the  character  of  the  suj^ervision  practiced  by  those  in 
ofltice;  the  absence  of  uniformity  in  appointments  for  worship, 
and  the  dissimilarity  from  older  churches  in  the  matter  of  forms 
— these  all  give  evidence  that,  the  measures  of  polity  adopted 
by  the  fathers  were  in  the  main  determined  by  the  principles  of 
government  which  we  have  found  involved  in  the  church's  orig- 
inating conditions.  Such  continued  to  be  the  case  until  the  time 
when  the  '-constitution"  was  adopted.  But  for  such  an  instru- 
ment there  is  evidently  no  provision  in  the  principles  determin- 
ing the  government  of  the  church  of  the  United  Brethren  in 
Christ,  if  we  have  at  all  correctly  apprehended  those  principles. 
There  is  no  provision  for  such  an  instrument  in  the  figure  of  the 
mustard-seed  under  which  Christ  represents  the  rise,  growth,  and 
mission  of  his  own  church  on  earth.  Eternal  constitutions  are 
not  needed  to  govern  living  organisms  in  their  development.  We 
do  not  cultivate  our  gardens  with  constitutions,  nor  do  we  raise 
grain,  fruit,  or  cereals  with  them.  Perchance  they  may  do  to 
raise  some  kinds  of  truck,  provided  they  be  used  with  discretion 
and  be  only  occasionally  applied.  Now  put  them  on  for  protec- 
tion from  cold,  and  now  for  protection  from  heat,  and  anon 
take  them  off,  and  the  result  of  your  care  is  the  production  of — 
cabbage-heads.  But  even  cabbage-heads  can  not  be  raised  by  a 
constant  and  strict  application  of  constitutions  imposed  from 
Avithout.  Moreover,  that  which  may  be  withdrawn  at  pleasure 
could  scarcely  be  called  a  constitution,  and  could  certainly  not 
serve  to  pi*event  the  enemy  from  sow'ing  tares  upon  the  patch. 

The  history  connected  with  the  origination  and  "adoption"  of 
the  "constitution"  contained  in  our  discipline  is  too  well  knoAvn 
to  require  citations  from  it  in  proof  of  the  position  that  it  is  a 
measure  of  polity  altogether  abnormal  to  the  essential  principles 
of  the  church's  government,  and  obnoxious  to  her  distinctive 
denominational  character. 

AVhether  the  church  should  be  preserved  intact,  and  the  consti- 
tution be  correspondingly  modified,  or  vice  versa,  can  scarcely  be 
a  question  in  the  mind  of  a  loyal  member  of  the  United  Brethren 
in  Christ. 

In  a  correct  apprehension  of  the  essential  principles  of  govern- 
ment in  the  church  of  the  United  Brethren  in  Christ,  we  find — 

J.  That  measures  of  polity  can   not,  in   agreement  with   those 


GENERAL    CONVENTION.  25 

principles,  be  put  into  forms  which  do  not  allow  of  a  read}^ 
accommodation  to  the  combined  requirement?  of  the  life  of  the 
church  within  and  the  prevailing  conditions  without. 

To  this  requisition  the  Lord  Jesus  has,  in  the  New  Testament 
church,  himself  conformed,  with  perhaps  a  single  exception.  In 
his  supremely  anxious  care  for  the  welfare  of  his  church  he  hath 
not  imposed  upon  her  any  predetermined,  unchangeable  measures 
of  polity.  And  to  this  requisition  the  government  of  our  denom- 
ination conformed  in  the  days  of  the  fathers  until  1841,  when 
constitutional  limitations  were  made  to  extend  over  matters  of 
polity.     Such  conformit}',  we  need  not  say,  prevailed  — 

I.  In  the  itinerancy  which  obtained  among  them, 

2. 'In  the  prorata  representation  as  practiced  by  them  in  the 
first  eight  sessions  of  General  Conference  (see  C.  H.  vol.  2,  p. 
323). 

As  for  lay  representation,  it  was  absent  from  the  economy  of 
the  fathers  for  the  same  reason  that  the  apostles  were  at  first  the 
sole  representatives  of  the  primitive  church  in  matters  of  faith 
and  polity.  Interest  in  the  church's  welfare,  and  ability  on  the 
part  of  the  lait}^  to  represent  her  in  her  councils,  would  ere  this 
have  brought  about  lay  delegation  to  the  General  Conference  of 
our  church,  if  it  had  not  been  prevented  by  the  imposition  upon 
her  economy  of  that  abnormal  measure  of  polity  called  the  con- 
stitution. 

3.  As  we  are  addressing  those  who  are  acquainted  with  the 
history  of  the  United  Brethren,  we  need  not  state  how  the  father.'^ 
conformed  to  the  principles  of  our  denomination  in  the  govern- 
ment of  local  churches ;  how  their  culture,  the  ordering  of  their 
worship  namely,  and  the  provisions  adopted  for  the  promotion  of 
the  work  of  spiritual  quickening  and  ecclesiastical  reform  com- 
mitted to  them,  were  all  adjustecl  to  the  working  life  within,  and 
the  demands  of  the  conditions  without. 

II.  In  respect  to  matters  of  discipline  we  find,  according  to  the 
principles  enjoined,  that — 

1.  It  could  not  be  otherwise  than  that  in  the  recoil  from  eccle- 
siastical bondage  and  civil  tyranny,  to  which  they  had  been  sub- 
jected, and  in  the  succeeding  enjoyment  of  an  elevating  and  puri- 
fying liberty,  the  fathers  would  prohibit  human  slavery.  It  was 
moreover  essentiall}'  antagonistic  to  the  life  of  the  church  and 
sinful  per  se. 

2.  Freemasonry,  as  apprehended  b}^  the  fathers,  was  dealt  with 
measurably  in  accordance  with  the  princinles  underlying  the 
church's  government.  And  j^rior  to  lS-11  the  fathers'  relation  to^ 
the  whole  question  of  secrecy  could  scarcely  be  impunged  on  the 
ground  of  antagonism  to  the  church's  essential  principles  of  gov- 
ernment. But  from  that  time  forward  the  view  of  Freemasonry 
acquired  by  the  fathers  was  gradually  so  formulated  as  to  embrace 
all  so-called  secret  societies  under  a  like  condemnation  with  Masonry, 
as  ajjprehended  by  the  fathers.     A  provision  against  "secret  com- 


26  UNITED    BRETHREN 

binations,"  capable  of  unlimited  appiiration,  was  embodied  in  the 
''constitution.""  Pro  rata  representation,  practiced  hitherto  and 
agreed  to  by  the  General  Conference  of  1837  to  be  observed  in  the 
make-up  of  the  General  Conference  of  1841,  -was  abolished,  and 
thenceforth  secrecy  was  more  and  more  dealt  with  in  discipline  as 
a  sin  per  se,  so  that  now  a  member  of  a  secret  detective  society, 
formed  for  the  capture  of  Mollie  IMaguires  and  other  criminals, 
would,  from  the  stand-point  of  the  discipline,  have  less  chance  to 
ascend  to  heaven  from  our  branch  of  Clirist's  mustard-tree,  than 
a  Mollie  Maguire  from  the  gallows. 

Thus  wrested  from  its  proper  foundations  and  brought  into  dis- 
cord with  its  own  essential  ])rinciples,  the  government  -of.  the 
church  has,  since  1841,  steadily  and  constantly  tended  toward  the 
church's  disintegration  and  destruction.  Whatever  degree  of 
unity  and  vigor  of  life  she  may  still  manifest,  she  possesses  in 
spite  of  that  tendency  and  in  a  measure  apart  from  true  United 
Brethrenism.  Unless  we  can  speedily  rescue  her  from  the  pres- 
ent Medo-Persian,  cast  iron  limitations,  and  restore  her  govern- 
ment to  its  original  estate,  United  Brethrenism  will  suffer  irre- 
trievable loss,  and  may  possibh*  perish  from  the  earth  as  a  distinct 
form  of  dcnominationalism.  Slay  be  as  such  it  has  accomplished 
its  mission,  and  is  read}-  to  be  dissolved  ? 

III.  A  word  in  respect  to  doctrine  as  related  to  the  government 
of  the  church.  The  application  of  the  essential  principles  which  we 
have  been  considering  allows  only  matters  of  polity  and  discipline 
to  be  subject  to  adaptation.  Doctrines,  as  to  their  substance,  con- 
stitute the  seed  of  the  church,  and  are  in  their  veiy  nature  de- 
termining and  not  adaptable.  '•  The  apostles'  creed,""  substantially 
adopted  bj^  the  fathers  in  their  "  confession  of  the  faith,"  embodies 
the  doctrines  of  our  common  orthodox  Christianity.  The  distinc- 
tive features  of  the  church,  as  a  denomination,  arises  from  the 
views  she  holds  as  to  the  results  of  a  true  and  saving  faith  in 
these^doctrines,  and  of  the  manner  in  which  such  a  faith  should  be 
pi'oraoted.  When  it  comes  to  these  denominational  features,  we  find 
them  indicated,  but  not  fully  embodied,  in  the  fathers'  confession 
of  faith.  But  we  have  already  fully  set  th3m  forth  in  this  address. 
They  relate  to  the  experience  and  a  life  which  a  true  faith  in  the 
doctrines  embodied  in  the  confession  will  produce.  The  insistance 
upon  a  change  of  heart,  effected  b}-  the  H0I3-  Ghost^  producing  a 
new  life  and  faithful,  earnest  work  for  the  salvation  of  souls  and 
the  glory  of  God,  as  the  result  of  a  true  and  saving  faith,  is  the 
distinctive  element  of  doctrine  which  the  church  is  to  guard. 
And  to  preserve  this  view  in  its  original  vigor  the  fathers  pro- 
vided against  formality  and  bigotrj'  (in  a  paragraph  already  no- 
ticed) at  the  close  of  their  "  confession."  For  the  same  purpose 
they  enforced  tolerance  in  ever}"  thing  not  essential  to  Christian 
experience  and  godl}'  life.  And  in  order  to  fulfill  the  re(|uire- 
mcnt  of  its  essential  principles,  the  government  of  the  church 
must  be  exercised  to  maintain  such  experience  and  life  among  her 


GENERAL    CONVENTION.  27 

members.  And  hence  her  government  is  not  at  liberty  to  estab- 
lish any  other  tests  of  membershii)  than  those  comprised  in  such 
an  experience  and  life.  Once  in  an  editorial  in  the  United  Brethren 
Observer,  we  did  saj-  that  the  position  that  a  Christian  denomina- 
tion had  no  right  to  establish  tests  of  membership  not  recognized 
in  the  scriptures  as  tests  of  a  Christian  life,  could  scarcely  be 
maintained,  inasmuch  as  in  the  providence  of  God  there  might 
be  denominations  called  into  being  for  the  purpose  of  giving  such 
special  emphasis  to  particular  phases  of  Christianity,  or  adapting 
the  latter  to  such  peculiar  conditions  as  to  render  such  extraneous 
tests  admissibles.  But  it  is  evident  from  her  originating  con- 
ditions, that  the  United  Brethren  Church  does  not  belong  to  that 
class  of  Christian  denominations.  She  can  have  rightfully  but 
this  test:  that  a  member  be  a  Christian  and  live  as  sucli. 

It  ought  to  be  noted  partlcularlj'  that  the  government  of  the 
church  can  best  aid  in  preserving  the  church's  life  in  its  original 
vigor  by  endeavoring  to  maintain  for  it  an  undisturbed  and  unen- 
cumbered development.  Its  provisions  must  be  mainly  negative. 
They  must  aim  to  remove  dead  forms  and  "ward  off  encumbering 
legislative  details,  instead  of  imposing  such.  Positively  govern- 
ment can  do  nothing  for  the  health  and  vigor  of  the  church's  life. 
And  all  that  is  required  of  the  former  is  to  provide  a  chance  for 
the  latter  that  it  may  produce  its  own  forms  and  appropriate  its 
own  elements  of  nurture  and  edification. 

There  is,  moreover,  in  the  church,  as  in  qxqyj  living  organ- 
ism, a  sense  of  duty  with  respect  to  self-preservation,  which  is  a 
law  unto  itself,  and  acts  without  any  authority  or  prescription 
of  mode  from  without.  Upon  the  approach  of  danger  it  rises  at 
once  to  a  proper  exercise  of  its  vigor  for  its  protection,  emploj'ing 
whatever  modes  and  means  may  l)e  convenient  and  seem  effective 
for  the  purpose. 

Let  several  notable  instances  in  our  church  serve  to  illustrate 
the  effect  With  which  this  sense  operates  in  the  absence  of  specific 
law.  Some  years  ago  two  intellectual,  verj^  able  and  influential 
preachers  in  the  Pennsylvania  Conference,  embraced  a  dangerous 
error.  It  was  perceived  shortly  before  an  annual  session  of  their 
conference  that  they  were  privately  insinuating  the  doctrine  that 
after  death  all  unregenerated  persons  ceased  to  exist.  There  was 
no  law  on  the  subject,  but  it  took  the  conference  nevertheless  only 
a  day  or  two  to  give  them  a  trial,  find  them  guilty,  and  eject  them 
from  its  body  and  the  church.  And  notwithstanding  the  influ- 
ence and  prestige  their  ability  had  given  them  among  the  people, 
their  expulsion  barely  occasioned  a  ripple  of  dissatisfaction  any- 
where, though  thej-  made  strong  efiorts  to  create  disturbance  over 
the  action  of  the  conference  and  draw  people  from  the  church. 

Another  instance  of  similar  bearing  was  related  hy  a  delegate 
to  the  G-eneral  Conference  at  its  last  session,  if  we  mistake  not, 
for  the  same  purpose  we  are  making  it  serve  now.  A  preacher  in 
the  Miami  Conference  had  embraced  Universalism.     We  have  no 


28  UNITED    BRETHREN 

law  bearing  upon  this  error  specifically,  or  providing  means  for 
trying  a  Universalist.  Yet  the  conference  required  but  little  time 
to  dispose  of  him  hvivfuUy.  The  cause,  in  both  instances,  of 
prompt  and  vigorous  action  on  the  part  of  the  church  we  have 
already  indicated.  It  was  the  law  of  life  working  from  within 
for  the  repulsion  of  danger,  formulating  its  own  rule  of  action. 

Such,  then,  is  the  United  Brethren  Church  in  her  essential 
principles  of  government.  God  in  his  providence  evidently  sent 
her  forth  on  her  mission  of  salvation  in  an  orbit  which  approaches 
constantly  nearer  the  center  of  our  common  Christianity.  It  is 
ours  at  this  convention  to  resist  all  efforts,  by  whomsoever  made, 
to  drive  her  off  at  a  tangent  that  she  might  serve  the  idle  purposes 
of  erring  man,  instead  of  the  will  of  God.  It  is  ours  to  aid  her 
faithfully  to  follow  the  drawings  of  the  Father,  that  so  in  the 
glorious  revelation  of  his  Son,  among  all  the  stars  in  the  constel- 
lation of  denominationalism,  she  ma}-  be  found  nearest  the  great 
white  throne. 

On  motion,  the  toi^ic  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  State 
of  the  Church. 


LETTERS. 
Various  letters,  addressed  to   ditferent  delegates,  w^ere  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Eesolutions.     Afterward  they  were  referred 
to  the  Publishing  Committee.     Among  the  number  so  referred  we 
present  the  following : 

FROM    EAST    DES    MOINES    CONFERENCE. 

Western,  Iowa,  May  19,  1878. 

To  the  U.  B.  Convention — Dear  Brethren, — I  very  much  regret 
to  say  that  it  is  out  of  my  power  to  meet  with  you  in  convention. 
But  I  must  submit.  3Iy  Avife  is  very  low  with  typhoid  fever,  and 
I  can  not  leave  her.  Dr.  Favour,  who  expected  also  to  attend  the 
convention,  is  our  family  j^hysician,  and  must  not  leave.  So  1 
fear  our  conference  will  not  be  represented  in  the  convention. 
But  whatever  the  convention  in  its  wisdom  may  do  for  the  good 
of  our  cause  I  shall  try  to  acquiesce  in  and  recommend  to  the 
people  in  our  conference.  I  trust  you  will  forward  to  me  at  your 
earliest  convenience  a  copy  of  the  proceedings  of  the  convention. 
May  the  blessing  of  CJod  rest  on  the  convention,  is  my  prayer. 

W.  S.  DEMOSS. 

FRO.M    rVRKERSBlRO    CONFERENCE. 

Trov,  AV.  Va.,  May  15,  1878. 
To  the  U.  B.  Convention — Dear  Brethren, — 1  regret  that  I  have 
to    notify   you  of    my    inability  to   attend    your   meeting.     M}^ 
hearty  sympathy  is  with   you  in  your  noble  work — that  of  liber- 
ating our  common    Zion  from  the  fetters  that    have  been  bound 


GENERAL    CONVENTION.  29 

about  her  by  a  few  men  in  the  church.  The  responsibilities  of 
the  hour  are  grave,  and  you  will  need  much  of  the  spirit  and  lovable 
disposition  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  for  the  work.  There  should 
be  love  manifested  in  3'our  deliberations  toward  those  who  ditfer 
from  us  on  the  questions  now  dividing  us  as  a  church  ;  yet  there 
should  be  unflinching  firmness  for  the  right.  May  the  Master 
guide  vou  in  3-our  deliberations.     Yours  in  Christ, 

S.  J.  GRAHAM. 

UPPER    WABASH    CONFERENCE. 

Green  Hill,  April  16,  1678. 
Eev.  W,  McKee — Dear  Brother, — Your  card  and  circulars  are 
at  hand,  and  have  been  distributed,  as  you  suggest,  to  those  who 
will  make  good  use  of  them.  I  do  not  know  that  I  will  be  able 
to  attend  the  convention,  for  my  son  is  very  low  with  the  con- 
sumption. But  be  assured  that  1  am  with  you  in  your  undertak- 
ing, and  will  stand  by  the  action  of  the  convention — unless  it 
concludes  to  divide  the  church,  in  which  case  I  could  not  go  with 
it,  for  the  church  is  my  mother,  and  I  can  not  hurt  her.  I  think 
the  libei-al  sentiment  is  growing  in  our  conference,  and  is  rij^e  for 
action.  Yet  we  may  have  a  few-  brethren,  and  I  think  they  are 
good  men,  who  are  in  favor  of  our  law  on  secrecy ;  but  quite  a 
number  of  the  preachers  of  Upper  Wabash  Conference  are  in 
favor  of  modification.  Let  me  hear  from  you  again  soon. 
Your  brother  in  Christ, 

A.  W.  WAINSCOTT. 

FROM  SANDUSKY  CONFERENCE. 

Bowling  Green,  Ohio,  May  20,  1S7S. 

Dear  Brother  Miller, — I  drop  you  this  note  to  let  you  know 
that  the  reason  I  am  not  with  you  is  Avant  of  health.  I  am  quite 
unwell,  though  I  am  still  up  and  around. 

I  hope  you  will  have  a  pleasant  and  profitable  time  at  Dayton, 
and  that  nothing  may  be  done  or  said  to  increase  division  or 
widen  the  breach,  but  that  something  may  be  said  and  done  to 
bring  the  discordant  elements  nearer  to  God  and  to  each  other. 
I  have  been  praying  for  the  healing  waters  to  flow  all  over  our 
beloved  Zion.  Had  I  been  permitted  to  be  one  of  your  number 
in  convention,  God  knows  that  I  wo.uld  have  bent  all  n\y  energies 
in  that  direction.  May  God  grant  to  every  member  of  the  con- 
vention an  abundant  measure  of  that  "charity  that  thinketh  no 
evil."  May  no  schismatist  find  a  square  inch  of  space  to  occupy. 
You  know,  dear  brother,  that  evil  and  only  evil  has  been  proph- 
esied as  coming  out  of  the  convention.  But  I  feel  sure  that  avast 
majority  of  the  convention  are  influenced  by  pure  motives,  the 
glory  of  God,  and  the  good  of  our  beloved  Zion — which  being 
true,  it  must  result  in  good.  I  hope  the  topic  assigned  me,  "The 
Union  of  the  U.  B.  and  Evangelical  Churches,"  Will  have  a  full 
and  free  discussion  and  a  hearty  recommendation  by  the  conven- 
tion.    God  bless  you.  L.  MOORE. 


30  UNITED  BRETHREN 

FROM    AUGLAIZE    CONFERENCE. 

JAntwerp,  Ohio,  May  20, 1878. 

Rev.  McKoe,  Daj^ton,  Ohio — Dear  Brother, — I  am  very  much 
disappointed  this  morning,  as  I  had  made  all  arrangements  for 
attending  our  convention,  even  to  the  writing  of  a  short  speech 
on  lay  representation.  But  I  am  hindered  by  a  case  of  sickness 
that  I  must  not  neglect  on  any  account;  but  I  hope  and  shall 
pray  that  you  will  have  a  real  good  time — one  long  to  be  remem- 
bered in  the  history  of  the  United  Brethren  Church.  I  am  satis- 
fied that  something  must  be  done  or  our  church  must  take  a  place 
away  down  in  the  scale  of  usefulness  as  a  power  in  the  world. 
The  time  was  when  bigotry  and  superstition  ruled  the  world  in 
religious  matters.  But,  thank  God,  those  days  are  past — a 
brighter  era  dawned  upon  the  world.  Men  are  permitted  aiid  are 
not  afraid  to  think.  Light  and  knowledge  are  fast  taking  the 
place  of  superstition. 

I  am  fully  in  sympatbj^  with  the  movement  represented  bj'-  the 
convention  ;  and  did  I  not  believe  that  in  the  end  we  shall  suc- 
ceed in  effecting  some  changes  in  our  present  church  polity,  1 
would  not  remain  another  year  in  the  church.  But  I  have  always 
felt  that  the  good  Lord  had  a  work  for  us  in  the  United  Brethren 
Church  on  these  very  questions ;  and,  if  so,  then  it  would  be 
wrong  to  shirk  dut}'  and  go  into  another  church.  In  manj'  of 
the  conferences  it  takes  men  of  brains  and  courage  to  stand  up 
for  these  reforms,  but  1  believe  they  are  sure  to  come  in  the  end. 
God  bless  the  convention.  A.  McDANNEL. 

On  motion,  adjourned.  Singing,  and  doxology  by  Eev.  D.  Bone- 
brake. 


EVENING  SESSION. 

Dayton,  Ohio,  May  22,  1878. 
B.  F.  Booth  in  the  chair.     Devotional  exercises  conducted    by 
Rev.  J.  W.  AYaggoner. 

It  was  agreed  to  refer  the  minutes  of  the  c  )nvention  for  publi- 
tion  to  a  committee  of  three  to  be  appointed  by  the  Chair. 

The  seventh  topic — Our  Secrecy   Law — was   now  considered. 
The  opening  address  was  made  by  Rev.  W".  McKce. 
w.  m'kee's  address — OUR  secrecy  law. 

The  United  Brethren  Church  has  a  law  on  the  subject  of  secret 
societies.  At  first  this  statute  was  intended  to  exclude  Free- 
masons only.  In  1833  the  General  Conference  "  Resolved,  That 
Freemasonry,  in  every  sense  of  the  word,  be  totally  discounte- 
nanced, and  in  no  way  tolerated  in  our  society."  In  1841  the 
constitution  of  the  church  was  adopted.  This  document  asserted 
that  "There  shall  be  no  connection  with  secret  combinations," 
"  secret  combinations,"  taking  the  place  of  "  Freemasonry."     The 


GENERAL  CONVENTION,  31 

-law  for  dealing  with  members  from  1841  to  1861,  just  twenty 
years,  was  substantially  this  :  "Any  member  found  connected 
with  sach  a  society  shall  be  affectionately  admonished  twice  or 
thrice  by  the  preacher  in  charge ;  and  if  such  member  does  not 
desist  in  a  reasonable  time  he  shall  be  notified  to  appear  before 
the  tribunal  to  which  he  is  amenable,  and  if  he  still  refuse  to 
desist,  shall  be  expelled  from  the  church." 

In  1861  the  General  Conference  declared  that  persons  connected 
with  secret  societies  should  be  dealt  with  "  the  same  as  in  cases  of 
immorality  " — this  being  the  first  time,  and  now  only  by  implica- 
tion,  that  the  General  Conference  declared  such  connection  to  be 
an  immorality.  A  very  few  members,  including  the  present 
Bishoj)  Dickson,  voted  against  this  law.  In  a  day  or  two,  how- 
ever, he  changed  his  vote  in  favor  of  the  l&v.'.  Eeturning  to  his 
congi-egation  at  Orrstown,  Pennsylvania,  he  sent  a  card,  dated 
June  20,  1801,  to  the  Telescope,  in  which  he  explained  how  it  was 
that  he  was  induced  to  change  his  vote  in  General  Conference  on 
the  secrecy  question,  thus:  "  The  new  chapter,  as  vre  understood 
it  when  the  vote  was  taken,  made  it  immoral  lor  any  person,  no 
matter  whether  he  stood  connected  with  our  branch  of  the  church 
or  not,  to  connect  himself  with  a  secret  order.  For  this  sense  of 
the  clause  we  could  not  vote,  not  believing  it  to  be  true.  The 
explanation  of  the  friends  of  the  measure  was  that  the  immor- 
ality attaches  only  to  the  members  of  the  United  Brethren 
Church  who  enter  into  a  secret  association.  With  this  explana- 
tion we  felt  like  giving  uur  indorsement  to  the  measure,  it  being 
in  violation  of  church  law,  a  species  of  dishonesty  which,  in  a 
modified  sense,  amounts  to  immorality.''  Thus  in  1861,  in  Bishop 
Dickson's  oi^inion,  it  wasnot  an  immorality  pei'  se  to  belong  to  a 
secret  society.  It  was  only  an  immorality  for  a  member  of  the 
United  Brethren  Church,  and  this  in- a  modified  sense,  to  belong- 
to  a  secret  society ;  and  this,  not  because  such  connection  could 
be  shown  to  be  evil  in  itself,  but  because  we  had  a  church  law 
against  it ! 

And  now  that  we  have  Bishop  Dickson  before  us — and  he  is  a 
very  reliable  and  accurate  witness — we  will  hear  his  testimony  of 
others'  opinion  on  the  immorality  of  connection  with  secret  socie- 
ties. Brothers  Hill  and  Gillisj^ie  appeared  in  the  Telescope  chal- 
lenging the  Bishop's  opinion  as  being  incorrect.  The  law,  they 
said,  taught  that  connection  with  secret  societies  is  a  sin  joer  se  on 
the  part  of  anybody  holding  such  connection.  They  declared^ 
moreover,  that  if  this  interpretation  of  the  law  should  obtain,  the 
church  could  not  maintain  it.  It  would  become  a  hissing  and  by- 
word. In  his  rejoinder  the  Bishop  said :  "  Before  I  asked  to 
have  ray  vote  changed  on  the  new  section  on  secrecy  I  went  to  a 
brother  who,  as  I  considered,  made  one  of  the  very  best  speeches 
that  was  made  on  that  question,  and  he  told  me  that  my  explana- 
tion was  his  understanding  of  it.  This  brother,  in  my  presence^ 
then  went  to  the    author  and  mover  of  this  amendment  to  disci- 


32  UNITED  BRETHREN 

plinc,  and  returned  stating  that  that  is  its  design.  I  thonglit 
tlien,  and  tliink  still,  that  such  authorit}'  is  reliable."  That  is  to 
say,  Bishop  Dickson,  the  brother  who  wrote  and  presented  the 
law  to  General  Conference,  and  the  brother  who  made  the  best 
speech  in  favor  of  it,  all  three  testify-  that  it  was  the  design  of  the 
General  Conference  in  passing  this  law  to  express  the  opinion 
that,  "in  a  modified  sense,"  it  was  an  immoralit}*  for  a  member  of 
the  United  Brethren  Church  to  belong  to  a  secret  societ}',  not 
because  the  thing  was  sinful  in  in  itself,  but  because  we  had  a 
church  law  on  the  question  !  This  was  in  1861.  Had  the  law 
asserted  plainly  that  connection  with  a  secret  society  is  an  immor- 
ality, it  would  not  have  passed  the  General  Conference  with  such 
unanimity;  it  is  doubtful  whether  it  could  have  been  adopted  at 
all.  But  the  law  was  adroitly  drawn.  Such  2)ersons  should  be 
dealt  with  "as  in  cases  of  immorality."  Any  one  can  see  in  the 
light  of  Bishoi?  Dickson's  testimony  that  it  was  designed  to  imply, 
not  express,  that  in  a  modified  sense  a  member  of  the  United 
Brethren  Church,  not  anybody  else,  committed  sin  by  joining  a 
secret  societj'  !  This  is  drawing  it  rather  fine  ;  but  it  shows  prog- 
ress in  the  fanatical  path  the  leaders  of  the  church  had  chosen  to 
travel;  and  it  shows,  further,  that  the  ambiguity  with  which  the 
law  was  expressed,  whether  so  intended  or  not,  enabled  brethren 
holding  widely  different  views  on  the  question  to  vote  for  the 
same  thing,  and  then  on  going  home  to  interpret  the  law  one  way 
in  Pennsylvania  and  quite  a  difterent  way  in  Ohio. 

This  statute  remained  unchanged  for  eight  years.  But  in  1S69 
it  was  deemed  necessary  to  give  the  tap  another  turn.  The  law 
of  1861  failed  to  keej)  members  of  secret  societies  out  of  the 
church.  Every  now  and  then  the  church  would  receive  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Union  League,  Grand  Army  of  the  Eepublic,  Grange, 
or  something  of  the  sort;  and  so  something  had  to  be  done.  The 
law  was  now  so  changed  as  to  require  the  preacher  in  charge  to 
admonish  members  connected  with  secret  societies.  If  the 
offender  failed  to  comply  within  six  months  "  he  shall  be  reported 
to  the  class,  quarterl}',  or  annual  conference,  as  the  case  ma}'  be, 
and  his  name  be  erased  from  the  record,  and  he  be  no  longer  con- 
sidered a  member  of  our  church." 

Here  again  the  reader  is  confused  by  an  ambiguity  of  expres- 
sion that  would  bring  the  blush  to  the  cheek  of  a  Jesuit.  Whether 
the  General  Conference  intended  it  or  not,  it  had  scarcely' 
adjourned  until  bishops,  presiding  elders,  preachers  in  charge, 
and  private  members,  began  to  ask,  What  does  the  law  mean  ? 
How  is  it  to  be  enforced?  One  believed  or  knew  the  preacher 
must  execute  it;  another  thought  the  class-leader  was  the  man  to 
erase  the  names  of  offenders ;  a  third  believed  the  class  itself  was 
the  proper  authority  to  deal  with  offenders ;  a  fourth  held  that 
the  law  was  a  kind  of  perpetual-motion  machine,  which  executed 
itself — it  needed  no  assistance  from  anj'body!  And  still  a  fifth 
held  that  such  cases  must  be  brought  before  the  class,  and  all' who 


GENERAL  CONVENTIO.V.  33 

would  vote  to  expel  should  have  the  privilege  to  do  so,  but  it  was 
not  lawful  for  the  preacher  to  put  the  negative  of  the  question  ! 
This  last  view  of  the  case  seems  to  have  been  the  right  one,  for 
on  an  appeal  going  before  the  General  Conference  wherein  the 
preacher  in  charge  had  gone  through  with  the  mockery  of  a  vote 
to  expel,  received  13  votes  out  of  ISO  members,  and  refusing  to 
put  the  negative,  the  last  General  Conference  "  affirmed,"  78  to 
28,  "the  action  of  said  pastor."  (General  Conference  Proceed- 
ings, p.  76.) 

Having  ascertained,  after  the  lapse  of  eight  years  and  repeated 
and  costly  experiments,  how  to  enforce  the  secrecy  law,  one  would 
think  the  General  Conference  would  have  rested  the  case.  But  it 
concluded  something  more  must  be  done.  The  bungling  way  in 
which  the  law  of  1869  was  expressed,  and  the  more  bungling  way 
in  which  it  had  been  enforced,  had  failed  to  rid  the  church  of  all 
these  offenders.  Indeed  it  was  greatly  feared  the  number  was  on 
the  increase.  Therefore  a  more  stringent  law  must  be  enacted. 
Hence  the  statute  now  in  force  was  adopted  one  year  ago,  and, 
being  last,  must  be  regarded  as  the  best  law  on  the  subject  the 
church  has  ever  had.  As  I  have  but  thirty  minutes  allotted  me, 
the  convention  w^ill  not  expect  me  to  quote  in  full  a  law  which 
fills  three  whole  pages  of  Discipline. 

But  before  proceeding  with  any  strictures  on  the  present  stat- 
ute, however,  allow  me  to  briefly  discuss  the  general  question, 
"Do  we  need  any  law,  as  a  church,  to  expel  members  whose  only 
offense  is  connection  with  a  so-called  secret  society?  ' 

I  am  not  blind  to  the  fact  that  a  great  many  brethren  answer, 
Yes.  •  They  are  opposed  to  secret  societies  of  every  name  and 
order,  and  can  not  bring  themselves  to  the  belief  that  members  of 
such  societies  can  be  good  Christians ;  or,  if  they  allow  by  any 
stretch  of  charity,  as  they  sometimes"  do,  that  they  are  really 
pious,  they  still  think  they  are  too  ignorant  or  too  worldly- 
minded  to  occupy  a  place  in  the  United  Brethren  Church,  albeit 
they  do  sometimes  allow  that  they  may  make  useful  members  of 
other  evangelical  churches. 

Now,  whether  this  opposition  to  receiving  into  the  church  per- 
sons connected  with  secret  societies  be  the  outgrowth  of  principle 
or  prejudice,  we  may  well  pause  and  seriously  consider  the  pro- 
priety of  even  discussing  a  question  which  so  man}-  are  deter- 
mined shall  not  be  discussed,  and  equally  decided  that  our  law, 
like  those  of  the  Medesand  Persians,  must  be  forever  maintained. 
Some  who  are  opposed  to  the  law  think  it  best  to  say  nothing, 
and  let  the  church,  without  the  shadow  of  opposition,  drift  on  in 
its  course,  spending  a  good  share  of  its  strength  in  fighting 
secret  societies,  to  the  neglect  of  the  more  important  work  conT- 
mitted  to  its  hands.  But  the  question  will  not  down  at  our  bid- 
ding. It  meets  us  in  every  town  where  we  have  a  church,  or  are 
trying  to  build  one.     We  can  not  push  it  aside. 

I  am  free  to  admit,  moreover,  that  the  church  has  no  reason  to 


o4:  UNITED  BRETHREN 

hope  for  any  help  from  seeret  societies  in  their  organized  form, 
though  I  do  think  that  individual  members  of  them  may  be  good, 
and,  but  for  our  law  forbidding  it,  useful  members  of  the  United 
Brethren  Church. 

Thus  convinced,  I  maintain  that  this  church  would  do  well 
to  essentially  modify  or  entii'ely  repeal  the  secrecy  law.  A  reso- 
lution expressing  her  belief  in  the  evil  tendency  of  some  of  these 
societies,  and  the  inutility  of  all  of  them,  and  advising  her  mem- 
bers to  keep  aloof  from  them,  is  probably  all  the  church  needs  on 
this  subject. 

This  change  in  our  Discipline  is  demanded  by  the  spirit  of  the 
gospel  itself,  which  is  a  dispensation  of  freedom  to  all  its  children. 
It  has  given  to  no  man  or  body  of  men  a  patent  right  to  control 
the  reason  or  regulate  the  conscience  of  its  children.  It  repeat- 
edly affirms  that  the  disciples  of  the  Loi'd  Jesus  are  perfectly  free 
to  do,  or  not  to  do,  a  great  many  things,  as  their  own  judgment 
and  conscience  may  dictate.  For  example,  one  may  or  may  not 
celebrate  holidays,  be  circumcised  or  not,  eat  meat  or  not,  vote 
and  hold  office  or  not,  just  as  he  thinks  proper.  They  may  belong 
to  different  political  parties,  attend  their  caucuses  and  conven- 
tions, vote  their  tickets,  good,  bad,  or  indifferent;  and  some  of 
these  doings  might  seem  to  me  to  be  wrong;  but  the  church  very 
wisely  concludes  that  it  can  not  dictate  the  kind  of  political  creed 
a  man  must  believe,  or  the  candidates  he  shall  support  for  office. 
It,  in  effect,  says  to  its  members,  Exercise  the  reason  and  con- 
science that  Grod  gave  you.  It  holds,  further,  that  it  is  far  better 
to  give  its  members  tlie  utmost  freedom  in  the  exercise  of  the 
elective  fi-anehise  and  party  association,  even  at  the  hazard  of 
seeing  some  of  them  go  in  the  wrong  direction,  politicall}',  than 
undertake  to  circumscribe  their  liberty  by  laying  down  rules  for 
their  direction  in  politics.  The  church  sa3's  wisely  that  she  will 
not  expel  a  member  because  he  is  a  Democrat,  Rej^ublican,  or 
any  thing  else.  She  will  judge  of  the  man,  not  by  his  political 
creed  or  vote,  but  hi/  the  life  he  lives.  One  may  hold  one  creed 
politically,  and  another  differ  from  him  widel}'  on  questions  of 
state;  yet  agreeing  in  the  truths  of  the  gospel,  they  unite  in 
church-fellowship,  each  exercising  the  charity  that  thinketh  no 
evil;  and  instead  of  judging  one  another,  appealing  to  the 
Searcher  of  hearts  to  sit  in  judgment  on  their  conduct.  And  this 
policy  works  well  in  i:>ractice.  Why  would  it  not  work  equally 
well  with  respect  to  secret  societies?  To  put  the  case  differently: 
If  the  course  pursued  b}^  the  church  with  respect  to  political 
party  organizations,  literar}''  societies,  business  associations,  etc., 
be  right  and  safe — a  position  which  by  universal  consent  may  be 
assumed  to  be  correct — why  would  it  not  be  right  and  safe,  and 
every  way  in  accordance  with  the  gospel,  to  pursue  the  same 
course  in  relation  to  secret  societies? 

I  contend  for  the  modification  or  repeal  of  our  secrecy  law,  in 


(iENERAL  CONVENTION.  35 

the  second  place,  because  it  leads  to  the  grossest  inconsistencies 
on  the  part  of  the  United  Brethren  Church. 

We  consider  the  members  of  other  churches  good  enough  to 
worship  with  us  in  the  prayer-meeting,  though  they  be  members 
of  secret  orders,  and  even  meet  at  the  communion-table,  yet  we 
scorn  the  idea  of  extending  to  them  the  privilege  of  membership 
in  this  church.  We  thus  make  connection  with  this  church  of 
mora  consequence  than  communion  with  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
And  this  not  on  account  of  any  heterodoxy  or  immorality.  They 
may  hold  the  truths  or  doctrines  of  our  holy  religion  precisely  as 
we  understand  them,  and  their  religious  life  be  above  reproach, 
yet  if  they  happen  t*^  belong  to  the  Sons  of  Temperance  or  Brick- 
layers' Union  we  bar  the  door  against  them.  Said  an  old  and 
widely-known  minister  in  this  church  in  a  public  address  in  Illi- 
nois: "I  believe  there  are  some  honest  Masons;  and  I  know 
some  to  whom  I  would  give  the  bread  and  the  cup  at  the  com- 
munion-table; yet  I  would  be  unwilling  to  have  them  join  this 
church?"  We  think  the  Baptists  are  narrow  and  exclusive,  but 
are  we  any  better?  A  member  of  the  United  Brethren  Church 
joins  the  Odd-fellows.  We  raise  the  hue  and  cry  at  once  that  he 
has  fallen  from  grace  !  And  what  is  the  evidence  of  it?  Has  he 
burned  somebody's  house?  killed  a  man?  been  drunk  and  dis- 
orderly on  the  streets?  Nay;  he  has  violated  our  law  on  secret 
societies!  By  dint  of  effort  he  is  driven  from  the  church,  and 
peace  returns.  He  crosses  the  street  and  is  received  by  the  Pres- 
byterian, Methodist,  or  Lutheran  Church.  Time  passes.  Six 
months  after,  he  drops  into  one  of  our  quarterly  meetings,  and  is 
given  a  seat  at  the  communion-table!  He  is  still  an  Odd-fellow; 
but  as  he  is  no  longer  a  member  of  the  United  Brethren  Church 
we  regard  him  as  a  good  Christian  ! 

When  we  attempt  to  judge  of  one's  fitness  for  the  kingdom  by 
the  fact  that  he  wears  buttons  or  hooks  and  eyes  on  his  clothes, 
has  or  has  not  his  life  insured,  belongs  to  an  agricultural  society, 
a  trade's  union,  or  a  seci'et  society,  we  commit  an  egregious  blun- 
der. The  Sons  of  Temperance  and  Good  Templars,  for  examj)le, 
may  not  be  the  best  possible  organizations  to  effect  a  temperance 
reform;  bat  it  is  idle  to  assert  that  they  accomplish  no  good,  and 
criminal  to  expel  a  member  of  one  of  these  societies  from  the 
church  if  this  is  all  the  fault  that  can  be  found  with  him.  Trades' 
unions  may  not  be  the  best  agencies  for  promoting  the  welfare  of 
the  pei'sons  connected  with  them,  or  of  society  at  large;  yet  it  is 
supreme  folly  for  the  church  to  retain  a  law  that  excludes  such 
persons  from  its  communion.  It  practically  drives  us  from  all 
the  centers  of  influence,  and  compels  us  to  abide  in  the  lanes  and 
hedges.  The  Farmers'  Grange  may  be  a  very  poor  system  of 
co-operative  labor  and  protection  to  the  agriculturists ;  but  the 
church  is  in  poor  business  when  she  frowns  on  every  effort  of  the 
laboring  classes  to  better  their  condition,  even  though  they  mani- 
fest little  wisdom  in  their  methods  of  oj^eration.     The  church. 


36  INITED    BRETHREN 

and  particularly  the  ministry  of  the  church,  does  not  always  know 
just  ichat  the  laboring  classes  might  better  do  in  relation  to  their 
temporal  affairs;  and  if  they  did  always  know  the  laity  are  not 
always  pursuing  the  wisest  course,  it  might  be  brotherly  to  give 
words  of  counsel,  but  it  is  certainly  inconsistent,  and  contrary  to 
the  spirit  of  the  gospel,  to  expel  members  from  the  church  because 
they  belong  to  an  agricultural  society  or  a  co-operative  associa- 
tion. Yet  our  law  does  this  unless  the}-  throw  open  their  doors 
to  all  comers,  at  all  times.  So  manifest  is  this  inconsistency  that 
the  advocates  of  our  law  rarely  attempt  to  find  fault  with  trades' 
unions,  the  Grand  Army,  the  temperance,  agricultural,  and  co-op- 
erative societies.  Their  arguments  are  as  illogical  as  our  law 
makes  the  church  inconsistent.  It  runs  thus:  The  Freemasons 
are  an  association  of  men  who  not  only  do  no  good,  but  positive 
evil  to  its  own  members  and  to  society  at  large ;  and  therefore 
the  Sons  of  Temperance,  trades'  unions,  etc,  are  organized  for 
the  purpose  of  deceiving  and  destroying  men,  and  no  member  of 
cither  ought  to  betolei-ated  in  the  church,  an}' more  than  a  drunk- 
ard or  thief.     So  much  for  inconsistency. 

HI.  My  third  argument  in  favor  of  a  modification  is  that  there 
is  not  a  conviction  sufficientl}'  strong  on  the  part  of  the  member- 
ship of  the  church,  of  the  wickedness  of  all  the  members  of  se- 
cret societies  to  execute  the  law.  The}'  may  believe  that  such 
members  are  in  error  ;  they  may  think  such  members  spend  a 
great  deal  of  time  and  money  in  supi)ort  of  secret  orders  that 
might  better  be  used  in  sujiport  of  the  church ;  they  may  believe 
that  some  of  the  secret  orders  impose  heavy  oaths  and  obligations 
-on  their  members,  and  approximate,  if  they  do  not  actually  offer 
idolatrous  worship,  in  some  of  their  ceremonies.  The  laity  may 
believe  all  this,  but  they  do  not  believe  that  the  members  of  the 
church,  who  worship  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  who  may  happen  to  be  members  of  some  of  these  orders,  es- 
pecially the  minor  ones,  are  necessarily  heretical  or  immoral. 
They,  therefore,  often  hesitate,  and  sometimes  entirely  decline  to 
expel  members,  if  no  other  charge  is  alleged  than  connection  with 
secret  societies.  But  lest  this  position  be  called  in  question,  I  of- 
fer in  proof  of  it  the  following  statements  : 

1.  The  report  of  the  committee  at  the  General  Conference  in 
Lebanon,  ISGt),  supposed  to  be  the  work  of  the  ablest  men  in  the 
church,  declared  that  the  preacher,  presiding  elder,  or  bishop 
should,  after  the  expiration  of  six  months  from  the  time  the  ad- 
monition might  be  given,  expel  such  offending  members.  This 
was  a  palpable  departure  from  the  well-known,  and  highly  cher- 
ished law  and  custom  of  the  church.  The  church  had  always 
taught  that  the  class,  not  the  preacher,  received  and  expelled 
members.  But  this  committee  held,  and  asked  the  General  Con- 
ference to  pass  a  law  which  would  utterly  ignor  the  right  of  the 
church  either  to  protect  or  expel  its  own  members.  If  a  man 
were  guilty  of  blasphemy,  drunkenness,  theft,  or  of  heresy,  the 


GENERAL  CONVENTION.  37 

Discipline  provided  that  the  chui'ch  should  deal  with  him  accord- 
ing to  the  nature  of  the  case.  But  if  he  should  join  the  Sons  of 
Teuiperance  the  offense  was  so  henious  that  the  preacher  must 
expel  him!  Why  did  that  committee  so  report?  For  this  ob- 
vious reason:  they  did  not  believe  the  churches  would  execute 
the  law.  But  the  General  Conference  did  not  pass  it  in  this  form. 
The  report  was  amended  in  order  that  the  class  or  conference,  as 
the  case  might  be,  should  be  recognized  as  the  rightful  tribunal 
to  sit  in  judgment  on  the  trial  and  expulsion  of  members,  as  well 
as  the  power  that  receives  members. 

2.  1  adduce  the  decision  and  efforts  of  some  of  our  bishops, 
prior  to  the  last  General  Conference,  still  requiring  the  preacher 
to  expel  instead  of  the  class,  notwithstanding  the  amendment  of 
the  General  Conference  to  meet  this  particular  feature  of  the  re- 
port of  the  committee.  The  argument  by  wMiich  this  decision  was 
reached  runs  thus  :  The  people  will  not  execute  the  law,  but  the 
General  Conference  did  not  intend  to  admit  members  of  secret 
societies  into  the  church  ;  therefore  the  law  must  be  so  construed 
as  to  require  the  preachers  to  execute  it,  and  they  must  do  it. 

3.  There  are  scores  of  our  preachers  who  think  and  say  they 
will  execute  the  law  at  all  hazards;  but  very  few  of  these  are 
willing  to  enforce  it  when  they  know  it  will  divide,  if  not  destroy, 
the  church  to  which  said  secret  societ}''  members  belong,  (^uite  a 
number  of  our  ministers  find  it  easy  to  require  other  preachers  to 
execute,  or  have  executed,  this  law,  but  w^hen  they  themselves  are 
called  upon  to  deal  with  it  they  hesitate,  and  in  man}'  cases  re- 
fuse to  go  forward.  Why?  Simply  because  they  can  not  bring 
themselves  to  the  conviction  that  it  is  certainly  right  to  do  so. 
From  all  this  I  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  church  at  large  is 
not  satisfied  that  it  is  right  to  expel  all  and  every  such  member. 

But,  says  one,  may  it  not  be  a  righteous  law,  notwithstanding 
this  want  of  conviction  on  the  part  of  many,  and  ought  we  not 
to  retain  our  lavv  whether  the  people  are  willing  to  execute  it  or 
not?  This  question  is  certainly  worth  asking.  My  reply  is,  first, 
there  is  no  want  of  willingness  to  expel  persons  who  are  convicted 
of  immorality.  It  is  questionable,  for  example,  whether  there  is 
a  church  in  the  denomination  which  would  refuse  to  expel,  on 
conviction,  a  blasphemer,  a  liar,  a  thief,  an  adulterer,  a  false 
swearer,  or  one  guilty  of  any  other  offense  that  can  be  shown  to 
be  immoral. 

In  the  second  place,  there  is  little  hope  that  the  consciences  of 
the  members  of  the  church  will  ever  be  educated  up  to  the  point 
of  executing  this  law.  The  literature  they  have  always  been 
furnished  by  the  church  is  pregnant  with  anti-secrecy  sentiments. 
The  Morgan  tragedy  and  the  Eathbun  outr^ige  have  been  repeated 
often  enough,  one  would  think,  to  cultivate  a  sentiment  sufficient- 
ly strong  to  enable  them  to  execute  the  law,  if  they  can  ever  be  so 
educated.  This  observation  derives  additional  force  by  the  fact  that 
very  few  of  them — perhaps  not  one  in  a  hundred — reads  anything 


38  UNITED  BRETHREN 

in  favor  of  secret  societies.  It  is  true  these  orders  publish  books 
and  periodicals,  but  except  the  preachers,  who  read  them  to  be  the 
better  able  to  oppose  these  societies,  very  few  members  of  the 
chixrch  know  any  thing  of  them  more  than  what  they  have  read 
in  our  own  publications.  They  have  read  only  one  side,  and  that 
in  favor  of  our  law.  Is  it  not,  then,  rather  strong  evidence  of  the 
untenableness  of  our  position,  in  the  light  of  fact  and  reason,  that 
so  many  of  our  people  are  unwilling  to  execute  the  law  ? 

IV.  My  fourth  argument  is  that  this  law  produces  friction  and 
causes  untold  heart-burnings,  divisions,  and  death  in  many  of  our 
churches.  A  few  years  ago  we  had  a  largo,  self-supporting  con- 
gregation in  the  capital  of  Indiana.  What  have  we  now?  A 
tabernacle  of  small  dimensions  weatherboarded  like  a  stable,  on 
a  back  street  in  a  distant  suburb  of  the  city,  with  scarcely  mem- 
bers enough  to  hold  a  mission  Sabbath-school !  AVhat  has  become 
of  the  members?  They  have  gone  in  a  body  to  the  Methodist 
Episcojial  Church — not  into  any  of  the  old  churches,  but  forming 
a  new  one,  and  for  years  being  served  as  pastor  by  a  former 
United  Brethren  preacher.  Why  all  this  ?  I  shall  probabl}-  be 
told  that  they  were  seditious,  heretical,  violators  of  law,  and  that 
the  ministers  themselves  were  heretics  and  outlaws. 

May  be  so;  but  would  they  have  been  such  had  this  law  been 
modified  or  repealed,  as  I  think  it  ought  to  have  been  years  ago? 
There  may  be  times  and  places  when  it  is  necessary  to  break  up 
and  destroy  churches  for  righteousness'  sake ;  but  I  question 
whether  the  breaking  up  of  some  of  our  churches  will  be  ap- 
proved by  history,  or  even  our  own  consciences  in  the  years  to 
be.  We  have  a  congregation  in  Lafayette.  This  law,  though 
gently  enforced,  and  sometimes  not  enforced  at  all,  has  kept  it  in 
a  state  of  constant  ferment,  and  the  attempt  to  execute  it  arbitra- 
rily, as  some  think  it  should  be,  would  destro}^  the  church  in  a 
very  brief  time.  In  a  word,  this  law  will  not  only  prevent  our 
building  churches  in  all  the  large  towns  where  we  have  as  yet 
made  no  attempt  to  plant  our  banners,  but  will,  sooner  or  later 
drive  iis  from  Columbus,  Gallion,  IMarion,  Sandusky,  Piqua,  Terro 
Haute,  and  Mattoon.  Strife,  division,  controversy,  trials,  death — 
these  are  the  fruits  of  this  law. 

V.  Finally,  this  law  hinders  our  success  where  we  now  labor. 
A  few  years  ago  Eev.  Mr.  C.  held  a  protracted  meeting  three  miles 
east  of  a  certain  town  in  |^Ohio.  More  than  three-score  of  souls 
were  converted,  but  only  about  half  joined  the  United  Brethren 
Church.  A  number  of  the  most  prominent  citizens  of  the  com- 
munity said  :  We  would  like  to  join  the  United  Brethren  Church: 
we  were  converted  here,  our  children  were  converted  here,  it  is 
convenient;  but  we  belong  to  this,  that,  or  the  other  secret  order, 
see  no  evil  in  it,  will  not  leave  it,  and  therefore  must  go  out  of 
our  way  to  join  another  church.  Well,  the  preacher,  who  alwaj's 
votes  in  the  conference  that  this  statute  must  be  maintained,  though 
the  heavens  fall,  found  his  heart  getting  the  better  of  his  head. 


GENERAL    CONVENTION.  39 

So  he  said  to  these  dear  brethi-on:  I  have  no  doubt,  that  you  are 
■Christians.  You  may  join  the  church  on  six  months'  trial,  and 
then  if  you  are  not  willing  to  leave  these  other  societies  you  can 
leave  the  church.  B\-  this  method  he  hoped  to  secure  to  the 
United  Brethren  Church  their  wives  and  children,  and  if  he  could 
not  hold  them,  at  least  prevent  them  going  any  where  else.  But 
no,  said  these  men,  "we  go  in  untrammeied  or  not  at  all."  So 
he  lost  them,  lost  their  wives,  lost  their  children,  and  lost  still 
others  who  followed  their  lead.  Thus  only  half  the  fruits  of  the 
revival  was  secured.  So  it  is.  The  members  of  these  societies 
are  not  all  we  lose,  but  their  families,  their  friends,  their  influence. 
Eleven  years  ago  there  were  over  one  hundred  souls  converted  in 
the  United  Brethren  Church  in  Piqua,  and  among  the  number 
three  or  four  Odd-fellows.  These  were  told  that,  though  con- 
verted, they  were  not  fit  to  belong  to  this  church.  And  at  the 
very  time  the  Odd-fellows  were  furnishing  bread,  and  meat,  and 
wood  to  a  family  connected  with  the  church.  The  wife  was  a 
regular  member ;  the  husband  would  have  been  if  our  law  had 
not  barred  him  out.  The  church  could  do  nothing  more  than  take 
•care  of  itself,  and  could  not  help  this  poor  man  or  his  family, 
"Well,  time  passed  on,  and  the  history  of  so  many  of  our  revivals 
was  repeated.  We  had  refused  a  number  that  we  ought  to  have 
taken,  and  would  have  taken,  but  for  this  law.  The  members 
soon  disputed,  divided,  and  melted  away,  till  there  was  scarcely'  a 
baker's  dozen  left.  And  so  we  work  on  in  Piqua  with  a  good 
house  of  worship,  in  an  excellent  locality,  and  nothing  in  the 
world  to  hinder  our  success  but  this  law,  which  drives  the  people 
from  us.  They  say  in  effect,  wo  will  have  nothing  to  do  with  a 
■church  which  seems  to  us  so  narrow,  selfish,  and  exclusive.  Many 
such  cases  could  be  cited.     But  enough. 

Let  us  now  consider  the  present  rule  itself — the  latest  and  best 
•even  yet  devised.  We  pass  by  the  preamble,  which  seems  to  be 
•designed  by  a  multitude  of  words  to  give  a  reason  or  excuse  for 
the  passage  of  such  a  law — a  kind  of  screen  to  hide,  if  possible, 
the  infamy  of  the  Jesuitial  enactment,  a  law  having  no  better 
foundation  than  our  belief  that  secret  societies  are  in  their  nature 
and  tendency  evil. 

The  first  clause  or  section  of  the  law  asserts  that  the  member 
who  joins  a  secret  society  has  withdrawn  from  the  churcli !  JS'o, 
not  exactly ;  he  shall  be  considered  as  having  withdrawn  from  the 
church.  This  is  a  distinction  with  a  difference.  If  a  man  act- 
ually withdraws  from  a  church,  he  is  commonly  supposed  to  know 
something  about  it  himself.  But  this  statute  enables  somebod}' 
else  to  "  consider  "  that  he  has  withdrawn  without  his  knowing 
any  thing  about  it.  Bishoj)  Markwood  used  to  tell  that  the  citi- 
-zens  of  Virginia,  having  voted  b}'  a  large  majority  to  remain  in  the 
Union,  went  to  bed  one  night  good  and  loyal  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  but  while  they  slept  the  Virginia  legislature  seceded  them  ; 
.and  when  they  rose  from  their  couches  in  the  morning  they  were 


40  UNITED    BRETHREN 

members  in  good  standing  and  fellowship  with  the  Confederate 
States  of  America  !  So  our  secrecy  law  enables  the  preacher,  who 
basin  him  the  spirit  of  discernment  to  "consider"'  that  certain 
ones  have  actually  withdrawn,  and  deal  with  them  and  with  the 
church  accordingly.  And  this,  though  the  withdrawn  ones  and 
the  church  were  utterl}^  ignorant  of  the  fact  till  the  revelation 
was  made  to  them  by  the  preacher.  This  shows  progress.  It 
avoids  the  necessity  of  an  admonition.  No  necessity  for  prefer- 
ring charges  and  instituting  a  court  for  trial.  It  saves  the  annoy- 
ance of  troubling  the  church  to  deal  with  refractory  members. 
The  member  has  withdrawn  ;  that  is  an  end  of  the  proceedings. 
All  that  remains  is  to  correct  the  record  so  as  to  correspond  Avith 
the  fact. 

,  There  are  two  objections  to  this  clause;  either  one  sliould  eon- 
sign  it  to  the  contempt  of  Christian  men  : 

First,  its  thinly-disguised  purpose  is  to  rob  a  member  who  joins 
a  secret  society  of  all  rights  and  privileges  in  the  church — even 
the  rights  of  a  criminal.  Such  a  member  has  no  rights,  according 
to  the  statute,  that  the  preacher  is  bound  to  respect.  If  he  were 
guilty  of  blasphemy,  theft,  slander,  murder,  treason,  arson,  the 
case  would  be  brought  before  the  class,  and  the  offense  calml}- 
considered  and  decided  upon  its  merits;  but  as  the  person  has 
joined  a  secret  society,  immediately  all  rights  are  withdrawn,  and 
he  is  to  be  recorded  out  of  the  church. 

Secondly,  this  section  exalts  secret  societies  into  a  position  equal 
to  the  other  denominations  of  Christians.  If  a  member  wished  to 
join  another  church  he  would  take  a  letter  of  good  standing  in 
this,  if  he  were  worthy  of  it;  if  he  wished  to  withdraw,  the 
church  would  give  him  a  letter  of  dismission,  at  his  own  request, 
stating  that  he  was  in  good  standing  with  the  church  at  this  time. 
This  I  suppose  to  be  the  proper  way  to  withdravv  from  the  church  ; 
but  in  the  case  under  consideration,  the  preacher  learns  he  has 
joined  a  secret  society,  puts  the  society  on  a  level  with  the  church, 
and  proceeds  to  "  consider  "  the  man  as  having  withdrawn  from 
the  church. 

In  the  second  section  we  are  told  that  "  no  person  shall  bo 
permitted  to  join  this  church  while  holding  membership  in  a 
secret  society."  Though  he  be  converted  at  our  altar,  and  thus  is 
given  a  hearty  welcome,  he  must  not  be  received.  Though  the 
Lord  has  received  him,  yet  will  not  we;  though  he  is  born  into 
the  kingdom  of  gi*ace,  and  become  an  heir  of  glory,  he  can  not 
come  into  the  kingdom  of  the  United  Brethren  Church !  It  must 
be  kept  pure ! 

Section  third  pi-ovides  that  all  persons  connected  with  secret 
societies  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of  this  law  are  required  to 
make  their  exit  from  said  societies  in  six  months ;  failing,  they 
are  referred  to  and  dealt  with  according  to  Section  1 — /.  c,  they 
are  by  the  preacher  to  be  withdrawn  from  the  church.  I  beg  you 
to  observe  what  progress  we  have  made.     In  1833  we  discounte- 


<iENERAL    CONVENTION.  41 

nanced  Freemasonry;  in  1841-Gl  we  affectionately  admonished 
those  connected  with  secret  societies  twice  or  thrice,  and  then 
proceeded  in  the  most  deliberate  and  brotherly  way  to  eject  them. 
In  1861  we  "  implied  "  that  connection  with  secret  societies  is  an 
immorality,  and  dealt  with  them  accordingly;  in  1869  we  pro- 
vided for  one  admonition,  without  prefixing  affectionately  to  it : 
in  1877  we  formulated  a  law  without  a  day  of  grace  or  an  admo- 
nition of  any  kind!  It  cuts  the  work  short  in  righteousness! 
The  preacher  withdraws  them  ! 

Section  four  provides  that  any  member  or  preacher  joining  a 
secret  society,  and  who  conceals  or  denies  such  connection,  shall 
be  tried  as  other  criminals.  This  article  sets  a  premium  on 
hypocrisy  and  falsehood  by  giving  to  the  persons  who  practice 
these  sins  a  better  and  more  honorable  way  out  of  the  church 
than  the  man  who  openly,  fairly,  honestly  says,  "I  did  join  the 
Sons,  the  Grange,  or  the  Masons,  and  am  not  ashamed  of  it!" 
But  1  mistake.  The  so-called  trial  is  only  to  determine  the  facts 
in  the  case.  If  he  were  guilty  of  falsehood,  theft,  adultery,  arson, 
or  some  such  trifling  immorality,  he  would  be  expelled  by  a  vote 
of  the  class  (Discipline,  page  24) ;  but  as  he  has  committed  the 
highest  crime  known  to  United  Brethren  juri8j)rudence,  the 
preacher  just  withdraws  him  I 

Section  five  explains  that  after  the  preacher  has  withdrawn  a 
member  he  shall  announce  the  fact  to  the  class,  and  change  the 
record  so  as  to  show  the  withdrawal.  The  class  itself,  with  its 
steward,  leader,  trustees,  church  record,  and  twenty-five  or  one 
hundred,  has  nothing  more  to  do  with  the  case  than  if  the  delin- 
quent member  were  a  citizen  of  Dahomy  and  a  member  of  the 
Purrow   Bush  ! 

But  the  closing  sentence  of  this  section  betrays  a  weakness.  It 
will  not  bear  inspection.  If  the  offender  be  a  preacher,  then  the 
quarterly  or  annual  conference  is  to  see  that  the  withdrawing  is 
done.  Nothing  is  said  about  the  conference  trying  the  case,  for- 
giving a  penitent,  ascertaining  whether  there  be  an}'  difference  in 
the  crimes  committed  by  different  ones,  and  whether  any  pallia- 
tions are  allowable — in  all  this  the  sentence  corresponds  with  the 
preceding  sections  of  the  law.  But  the  weakness  consists  in 
allowing  the  conferences  to  have  any  thing  to  do  with  such  cases. 
Who  knows  what  a  quarterly  conference  of  a  dozen  men,  or  an 
annual  conference  of  fifty  or  a  hundred  men,  will  do  in  such  cases? 
The  withdrawing  machine  works  best, in  the  hands  of  only  one 
man.  Trial  by  jury,  especially  when  there  is  danger  that  the 
jury  may  number  a  dozen  or  fifty  persons,  in  the  United  Breth- 
ren Church,  is  the  one  thing  to  be  dreaded  by  the  prosecutor  of 
offenders  against  the  secrecy  law.  We  have,  however,  shown 
that  the  General  Conference  has  made  great  progress  in  its  legis- 
lation on  this  vexed  question.  In  four  or  eight  years  more,  if  the 
law  of  progress  abides,  we  may  expect  the  Avithdrawing  machine 
to  be  wrested  from  the  conferences  and  placed  in  the  hands  of  the 


42  UNITED    BRETHREN 

bishop,  whore,  according  to  analogy  and  the  natui-e  of  things,  it 
rightfully  belongs.  Meantime  the  experience  of  the  church  will 
doubtless  demonstrate  the  wisdom  of  certain  brethren  in  propos- 
ing in  the  last  G-eneral  Conference  to  give  the  withdrawing 
machine  into  the  hands  of  the  bishop,  and  invest  him  with  plen- 
ary power  in  the  premises.  These  brethren  were  onl3'a  few  years 
in  advance  of  their  age. 

Section  six  enjoins  it  upon  pastors  to  instruct  our  people  upon 
the  evils  of  secret  societies,  and  make  a  faithful  effort  to  reclaim 
any  who  may  have  joined  such  societies.  This  is  the  best  clause 
in  the  law — and  in  fact  is  itself  the  only  law  the  church  needs  on 
this  question.  If  this  clause,  and  this  only,  followed  the  pream- 
ble, it  would  command  far  more  respect  and  accomplish  much 
more  good  than  the  whole  law  as  it  now  stands. 

Section  seven  provides  that  a  person  drawn  into  the  minor 
orders  may  be  borne  with  while  the  efforts  to  reclaim  him  are 
being  exercised  for  a  period  of  twelve  months. 

Here  the  church  must  be  perplexed  with  the  ambiguous  expres- 
sion, "  minor  orders,'"  which  may  be  understood  in  a  general  way 
in  a  newspaper  article,  but  which  is  liable  to  be  interpreted  in 
different  ways,  by  different  men,  to  suit  different  cases  and  to 
gratify  different  prejudices  on  the  part  of  those  who  are  given 
by  this  statute  the  power  of  the  church  life  and  death  of  the 
members  of  our  communion. 

Another  and  very  grave  objection  to  this  law  is  that  it  is  uncon- 
stitutional. They  who  favored  this  enactment  affect  great  rever- 
ence for  that  instrument;  they  ought,  therefore,  to  have  made 
this  law  conform  to  its  requirements.  In  their  view  the  written 
constitution,  adopted  by  the  General  Conference  in  1811,  is  the 
supreme  law  of  this  church.  This  constitution  declares.  Article 
II, Sections,  '-The  right  of  appeal  shall  be  inviolate;"  and  in 
keeping  with  this  requirement  provision  is  made  all  through  the 
Discipline  for  appeals  from  the  decisions  of  lower  to  higher  courts, 
even  though  the  grievance  be  the  loss  of  only  a  few  paltrj- dol- 
lars, or  half-bushel  of  wheat,  or  peck  of  potatoes;  but  when  the 
jireacher  exercises  the  right  conferred  upon  him  by  this  statute, 
and  "withdraws"  a  member,  he  no  longer  has  the  right  of  appeal. 
He  might  appeal  from  a  committee,  class,  quarterly  or  annual 
conference,  on  any  other  question  ;  but  he  can  not  appeal  from  the 
preacher's  "withdrawing"  process.  He  has  "withdrawn"  him 
out  of  the  church ;  he  announces  the  so-called  fact  to  the  class, 
corrects  the  record,  and  tliat  is  all  there  is  of  it.  If  such  an  act 
of  Congress  were  taken  before  the  Supreme  Court  on  a  case  made 
up  for  the  purpose  of  testing  the  validitj-  of  the  law — and  such 
cases  not  unfrequently  occur — it  would  beset  aside  as  unconstitu- 
tional, the  law-makers  thus  being  informed  that  they  must  con- 
form their  enactments  to  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  the  national 
constitution.  So  we  see  that  the  last  right  of  the  individual 
member  is  swept  away  by  this  law.     If  he  has  joined  the  Grange, 


GENERAL  CONVENTION.  43 

or  Sons  of  Temperance,  or  Grand  Army  of  the  Eepublic,  be  is 
lorthwith  denied  the  right  to  a  trial  by  his  peers,  either  by  com- 
mittee or  chiss.  If  he  joined  a  secret  society  after  the  first  of  last 
September,  the  preacher  need  not  give  him  a  single  day  of  grace 
unless  he  chooses  to  do  so — and  the  accused  can  not  hel])  himself. 
What  shall  be  done  with  this  law  ?  Let  the  dead  bury  their  dead. 
Let  it  fall  into  the  disuse  and  contempt  that  its  unreasonable  and 
unrighteous  requirements  deserve.  The  fugitive  slave  law  fell 
into  contempt  and  utter  disuse,  with  rare  exceptions,  long  before 
its  repeal  by  Congress,  and  this  because  it  was  a  law  against  truth, 
against  liberty,  against  the  plainest  and  dearest  rights  of  human- 
ity. American  manhood  traiupled  it  into  the  dust.  So  let  it  be 
with  our  secrecy  law.  Let  it  become  a  hissing  and  byword  in 
form  as  it  has  so  long  been  in  fact  in  so  large  a  portion  of  our 
Zion. 

1.  It  is  inconsistent  with  itself 

2.  It  is  unconstitutional. 

3.  It  is  rejected  by  the  reason  and  conscience  of  our  people. 

4.  Each  attempt  to  execute  it  only  produces  strife,  division, 
death  in  the  churches  where  such  efforts  are  jiut  forth. 

5.  It  is  a  great  hindrance  to  our  usefulness  as  a  church. 

REV.  .1.  Morrison's  speech. 

Eev.  J.  Morrison,  of  Central  Illinois  Conference,  took  the  floor 
as  soon  as  Rev.  McKee  closed,  and  said: 

Mr.  Chairman, — We  have  had  an  intellectual  feast  and  an  hon- 
est statement  of  the  progressive  steps  this  law  has  made.  It  has 
become  a  monster  that  stands  between  us  and  success.  It  has 
developed  us  as  the  ostrich  that  has  lost  its  wings  and  gone  to 
legs.  Decatur  was  once  a  self-supporting  station.  The  law  was 
not  strictly  enforced.  But  for  the  last  six  years  that  blessed  law 
has  been  carried  out,  and  so  has  the  church  ;  and  now  it  is  a  mis- 
sion, and  the  Central  Illinois  Conference  will  be  a  mission  if  that 
law  is  enforced.  What  shall  we  do  with  this  law?  Treat  it  as  the 
Telescope 'ko.^  treated  us — with  silent  contempt!  I  do  not  say  it 
has  committed  the  unpardonable  sin,  but  there  is  a  sin  for  which 
we  will  not  praj'. 

There  are  hundreds  of  radicals  in  the  west — not  so  many  in  the 
east — where  you  have  Light.  But  there  are  men  in  the  west,  and 
some  of  them  presiding  elders,  who  think  there  are  three  cardinal 
principles  upon  which  this  church  is  predicated  : 

1.  Upon  opposition  to  slavery. 

2.  Opposition  to  intemperance. 

3.  Opposition  to  secrecy. 

Of  course  they  think  there  are  some  minor  truths,  mere  non- 
essentials, such  as  the  conversion  of  ,the  world  to  Christ  and 
holiness  to  the  Lord.  Eeligion  is  a  very  good  thing,  they  think, 
but  is  he  loyal?  If  so,  then  as  Xoah  said  to  the  giraffe,  '-Walk  in  ! 


44  UNITED  BRETHREN 

walk  in  !  "  Loyalty  to  this  law  covers  a  multitude  of  sin,  A  law 
in  advance  of  public  opinion  is  a  failure.  This  one  is  in  the  rear 
of  public  opinion,  and  in  spite  of  it.  Law  should  express  the  will 
of  the  people.  The  majority  of  the  members  would  vote  that  law 
back  into  heathenism.  It  comes  down  on  the  great  heart  of  lib- 
berty  and  freedom  with  an  iron  heel  of  centralized  despotism. 
It  is  a  self-adjuster.  We  can  succeed  in  bringing  souls  to  Christ, 
and  building  up  the  church  only  as  we  are  popular.  The  law 
makes  us  unpopular.  We  can  drink  wormwood,  but  Ave  can  not 
relish  it  if  we  would.  What  did  Christ  teach  that  he  did  not  il- 
lustrate by  a  practical  life?  The  General  Conference  made  a  law 
that  it  dare  not  enforce,  and  voted  against  individual  investigation 
then  and  there.  Is  that  honesty?  "  Oh,  consistency,  thou  art  a 
jewel."  We  may  be  glad  of  some  things  in  the  past  history  of 
the  church  ;  it  has  done  some  good  work  in  spite  of  unwise  and 
bad  legislation.  Just  as  a  man  who  has  the  rheumatism  may  do 
a  good  day's  work,  not  because  he  has  the  rheumatism,  but  in 
spite  of  it.  But  can  we  rejoice  in  the  future  prospect  of  this 
church  in  the  city,  and 'enforce  this  law?  Are  we  a  success  in 
the  city  now  where  this  law  is  enforced?  If  so,  where?  The 
radicals  in  General  Conference  represented  sixty  thousand,  while 
the  liberals  represented  ninety  thousand.  Sixty  thousand  out- 
voted ninety  thousand,  and  called  their  acts  the  majority  report. 
They  made  this  law,  and,  like  Moses,  dashed  it  to  pieces  before  it 
come  down  to  the  people.  They  broke  it  by  refusing  to  obey  it 
themselves;  and  they  had  no  God  to  restore  or  re-create  it,  and  to 
it  death  is  an  eternal  sleep.  Let  it  sleep.  If  I  had  the  power  I 
would  not  force  any  one  to  agree  with  me  in  nonessentials.  We 
want  more  grace  and  less  law.  There  is  too  much  machinery  be- 
tween the  sinner  and  Christ.  This  law  is  not  essential  to  salvation, 
to  order,  to  harmony,  to  success.  Whatever  breeds  discord  in  the 
Church  of  Christ  is  not  of  God,  but  of  the  wicked  one. 

This  law  tends  to  rend  the  seamless  garment  of  the  church. 
The  curse  of  the  church  has  been  its  efforts  for  conformity,  and 
the  man  who  does  not  become  a  mere  tool  must  go  down  or  be 
driven  into  the  shade.  It  is  dangerous  to  be  honest.  I  know  many 
who  would  love  to  be  with  us  in  this  convention,  but  they  are  in 
the  minority  in  their  conferences,  and  well  they  know  that  as  the 
liberals  were  left  out  of  office  by  the  last  General  Conference,  so 
they  think  they  would  have  to  step  down  and  out.  Their  livers 
are  out  of  fix,  individuality  is  sacrificed,  and  the  man  lost  in 
trying  every  four  years  to  reconstruct  himself  to  a  certain  rule, 
and  the  difficulties  are  equal  to  the  reconstruction  of  the  south. 
Nature  cares  more  for  individuality,  and  puts  forth  all  her  ener- 
gies that  way.  Since  the  first  vegetable,  till  to-day,  never  were 
two  leaves  turned  out  of  the  great  book  of  nature  exactly  of  a 
pattern,  and  until  two  bodies  express  indistinguishable  methods 
of  thought  and  love,  never  will  two  bodies  have  the  same  creed. 
A  church  has  no  right  to  make  a  law  that  conflicts  with  a  religious 


GENERAL    CONVENTION.  45 

home.  The  family  was  the  first  church,  and  the  first  government 
of  earth.  The  curse  of  the  church  in  the  middle  ages  was  its 
laws  that  were  in  opposition  to  home  law,  to  home  liberties,  home 
rights.  Our  secrecy  law  is  a  broken  limb  in  this  church  ;  it  was 
bi'oken  by  its  organization.  It  has  been  nursed  and  doctored,  and 
it  has  grown  worse  and  worse,  until  it  is  gangrened.  We  have 
suffered  long  enough;  off  with  the  gangrened  leg.  Let  us  have 
liberty  in  all  nonessentials. 

No  man  that  can  grasp  in  the  thought  and  feel  that  the  human 
family  is  one  vast  brotherhood  can  love  that  iron  law — a  relic  of 
barbarism.  The  church  and  its  mission  is  being  lost  sight  of,  and 
to  some  in  this  church  it  is  no  more  than  an  anti-secret  club,  or- 
ganized to  oppose  secrecy.  Jesus  gave  the  test  of  membership  : 
"  If  any  man  would  be  my  disciple,  let  him  take  up  his  cross  and 
follow  me." 

He  was  followed  by  Z.  Warner,  E.  Light,  II.  Garst,  and  E. 
Adamson,  and  E.  S.  Chaj)man. 

The  topic  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  State  of  the 
Church.  A  number  of  letters,  addressed  to  the  convention  from 
diflFerent  portions  of  the  church,  were  also  referred  to  the  same 
committee. 

The  Chair  announced  as  a  Committee  on  Publication  of  Min- 
utes J.^W.  Sleeper,  C,  J.  Burkert,  and  L.  Bumgardner.  Adjourned. 
Singing,  and  doxology  by  Rev.  I.  Crouse. 


TRIED  DAY— MORNING  SESSION. 

DaytoNj  Ohio,  May  23—8:30  a.  m. 

The  convention  was  called  to  order  at  0:00  a.  m. 

Rev.  G.  W.  Deaver,  of  the  Scioto  Conference,  conducted  the  de- 
votional exercises. 

The  roll  was  called,  and  minutes  of  preceding  session  read  and 
approved. 

W.  McKee,  from  the  Committee  on  the  State  of  the  Church, 
made  a  report,  which,  after  considerable  discussion  and  several 
amendments,  was  adopted  with  great  unanimity,  as  follows: 

REPORT  ON  STATE  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

The  information  received  by  the  committee  through  the  mem- 
bers of  the  convention,  and  letters  from  brethren  in  a  great  many 
of  the  conferences,  indicate  a  fair  degree  of  prosperity,  especially 
east  of  the  Mississippi.  Revivals,  numerous  and  extensive,  dur- 
ing the  winter  just  gone,  have  followed  the  labors  of  our  itiner- 
ants, adding  many  hundreds  of  members  to  the  church.  And 
wherever  the  churches  have  not  been  troubled  »by  attempts  to 


46  UNITED  BRETHREN 

eject  members  by  the  operations  of  the  lately  enacted  secrecy  law, 
much  harmony  and  good  will  prevail.  AVe  should  not  conceal 
the  fact,  however,  that  there  is  a  degree  of  uneasiness,  more 
or  less  intense,  on  the  questions  of  pro  rata  representation,  lay 
delegation,  and  the  secrecy  law  Avhich  tends  to  the  unsettling  of 
preachers  and  people,  and  in  some  measure  hindering  their  use- 
lulness,  plainly  observable. 

From  the  information  received  we  believe  that  our  ministers  are 
becoming  more  and  more  men  of  one  calling,  and  preach  the  gos- 
pel of  life  and  salvation  to  perishing  men  with  as  much  faithful- 
ness and  fervor  as  ever  before  in  our  history.  Our  theological 
seminary  will  soon  swell  the  ranks  of  fully  consecrated  ministers  ; 
and  we  call  on  the  churches  to  awake  to  their  interest — 3'ea,  to 
the  interest  of  Christ's  cause — and  demand  that  their  preachers 
give  themselves  continually  to  the  word  of  (xod  and  prayer.  And 
we  would  affectionately  exhort  them  to  remember  that  they  who 
preach  the  gospel  shall  also  live  by  the  gospel. 

On  the  Sabbath-school  question  your  committee  believe  that 
there  is  more  real  interest  on  the  part  of  laymen  than  in  any 
other  department  of  church  work,  though  we  fear  that  many  of 
our  preachers  are  rather  slack  in  Sunday-school  labor. 

The  statements  of  Eev.  D.  Berger,  editor  of  our  Sunday-school 
literature,  to  the  convention,  and  R.  Cowden,  Esq.,  Sunday-school 
secretary,  show  that  however  the  church  may  fall  below  what  she 
might  do,  she  is  really  accomi)lishing  great  and  lasting  good  for 
the  children  of  the  church  through  her  Sunday-schools.  The 
institutes  already  established,  and  the  prospect  of  a  great  many 
more  in  the  near  future,  the  number  and  variety  of  Sabbath-school 
periodicals,  and  extensive  circulation  thereof,  give  an  earnest  of 
greatly  enlai-ged  usefulness,  and  encourage  the  hope  that  the 
thousands  of  little  ones  found  in  our  schools  will  be  brought  to 
Christ  in  early  life. 

The  Secrecy  .Law. 

Whereas,  The  last  General  Conference  adopted  the  most  un- 
satisfactory law  ever  yet  given  to  the  church  on  this  question, 
producing  open,  defiant,  and  almost  unanimous  repudiation  of 
this  statute  in  a  number  of  the  conferences,  and  a  silent  de- 
termination on  the  part  of  scores  of  our  itinerants,  and  thousands 
of  our  members,  all  over  the  church,  to  utterly  neglect  or  steadily 
oppose  the  enforcement  of  the  law  ;  and. 

Whereas,  Many  of  the  brethren  who  demanded  and  voted  for 
its  passage  find  it  exceedingly  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  enforce 
the  law,  and  at  the  same  time  keep  the  churches  from  falling  to 
pieces,  they  very  frequently  pass  b}^  such  cases  for  months  and 
years,  and  only  yield  at  last  because  they  believe  they  are  com- 
pelled to  obey  the  law,  because  it  is  a  law,  rather  than  being 
moved  by  a  conviction  of  duty  ;  and, 

Whereas,  There  ought  to  be  unanimity  of  action  by  the  difter- 
ent  conferences  on  this  vexed  question ;  therefore, 


(GENERAL    CONVENTION.  47 

.Resolved,  1.  That  this  convention  regards  our  secrecy  law  as 
unconstitutional,  because  it  violates  what  the  projectors  of  the 
law  hold  to  be  the  constitution  of  the  church,  since  .it  denies  the 
right  of  appeal  to  the  offender. 

2.  That  the  law  stands  directly  opposed  to  the  history  and 
usages  of  this  church  in  dealing  w^ith  offenders,  because  it  denies 
the  right  of  the  class  to  deal  with  its  own  members. 

3.  That  it  j^uts  a  i^remium  on  deception  and  falsehood  by  prom- 
ising a  more  hononable  way  out  of  the  church  to  him  who  prac- 
tices these  vices  than  to  him  who  in  an  open,  manly,  truthful 
way  declares  he  is  a  member  of  some  secret  society. 

4.  That  we  earnestly  oppose  it,  because  it  is  inconsistent  with 
itself  .by  denying  to  the  laymen  what  it  apparently  grants  to  the 
ministers — the  right  of  trial  by  their  peers. 

5.  That  for  these  and  other  reasons  this  convention  expresses 
its  profound  conviction  that  the  said  law  stands  opposed  to  the 
gospel  of  Christ,  fosters  strife  in  the  church,  hinders  our  success 
in  winning  souls,  and  retards  the  progress  of  the  church,  and 
therefore  its  enforcement  is  wrong. 

Pro  Bata  Representation. 

Whereas,  The  delegates  to  the  General  Conference  are  elected 
by  a  i)opular  vote  of  the  church,  thereby  making  the  people  the 
real  constituency  of  this  body ;  and, 

Whereas,  The  present  method  provides  that  only  territory 
shall  be  represented,  thus  making  our  polity  contradictory  and 
unjust;  and, 

Whereas,  It  is  our  duty  as  a  Christian  church  to  strictly  ob- 
serve Christian  equity  and  avoid  all  ^unjust  discrimination  in  all 
departments  of  church  life  and  work;  therefore. 

Resolved,  That  we  believe  that  pro  rata  representation  should 
be  provided  for  according  to  the  following  plan:  One  delegate 
from  each  annual  conference  for  every  fifteen  hundred  members: 
provided,  however,  that  any  conference  having  less  than  fiftee  n 
hundred  members  shall  be  entitled  to  one  delegate. 

Lay  Delegation. 

We  would  express  our  great  gratification  at  the  action  of  the 
last  General  Conference  in  according  to  annual  conferences  the 
liberty  of  introducing  lay  delegation  and  receiving  laymen  into 
their  counsels.  Our  chief  desire,  however,  as  advocates  of  lay 
delegation,  is  to  secure  representation  in  the  law-making  body  of 
the  church,  believing  that  such  representation  will  be  in  accord- 
ance with  the  word  of  God  and  sound  policy,  and  calculated 
greatly  to  strengthen  the  church  and  promote  the  glory  of   God. 

Adjourned  with  doxology,  and  benediction  by  Kev.  J.  S.  Mills. 


48  UNITED    BRETHREN 

THIRD  DAY— AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

Religious  exercises  were  conducted  by  Rev.  G.  F.  Deal,  of  the 
Muskingum  Conference. 

The  eigth  topic — Unofficial  Journalism  in  the  United  Brethren 
Church — was  now  considered.  Professor  H.  Garst  made  the  open- 
ing address. 

H.    OARSTS    ADDRESS. 

Journalism  is  one  of  the  greatest  forces  of  modern  times.  By 
its  varied  susceptibility  it  may  be  used  to  promote  almost  any 
interest  or  organization,  whether  industrial,  social,  political,  or 
religious.  Journalism,  as  we  find  it,  performs  in  relation  to  opin- 
ion two  leading  functions.  One,  and  the  more  prevalent,  is  to 
reflect  dominant  and  popular  opinion.  The  other,  and  more 
important,  is  to  champion  and  promulgate  unpopular  opinion.  In 
the  one  case  it  is  a  mirror  which  reflects  faithfully,  it  is  true,  but 
only  what  passes  before  it.  In  the  other  it  is  the  flaming  head- 
light which  darts  its  rays  forward  into  the  darkness,  revealing 
things  which  would  otherwise  he  unnoticed  and  unknown. 

in  politics  the  official  or  party  organ  is  expected  to  stand  by 
the  measures  and  men  of  the  party,  and  pursue  such  a  course  as, 
upon  the  whole,  will  be  most  certain  to  give  triumph  to  the  meas- 
ures and  office  to  the  men  of  the  party.  The  independent  jour- 
nal, when  truly  such,  acknowledges  allegiance  to  no  party,  and, 
with  respect  to  men,  holds  itself  bound  to  swear  by  the  words  of 
no  master. 

In  church  journalism  the  official  journal  or  organ  is  expected  to 
be  eminently  conservative  to  defend  all  the  laws  and  regulations  of 
the  ehurch,  and  reflect  faithfully  the  seiitiments  of  the  majority. 
Of  course  it  is  granted  that  the  official  church  journal  sometimes 
exhibits  greater  independence,  discusses  principles  and  polity 
upon  their  merits,  and  either  defends  or  opposes  them  according 
as  they  are  considered  wise  and  right  or  impolitic  and  Avrong. 
When  this  is  done,  however,  it  is  done  upon  the  responsibility, 
and,  it  may  be  added,  usually  at  the  peril  of  the  editor.  The 
unofficial  journal  not  being  amenable,  as  such,  to  any  church 
court,  has  greater  liberty  of  ojjinion :  can  propose  and  advocate 
radical  reforms,  paying  deference  to  truth  rather  than  to  some 
dominant  party.  Here,  too,  it  is  granted  that  the  unofficial  jour- 
nal may  fall  far  below  this  high  ideal — may  be  a  mere  opposition 
journal,  with  more  zeal  for  party  than  for  truth.  Indeed,  we 
believe  it  must  be  confessed  that  when  the  unofficial  journal  fails 
in  independence,  which  should  be  its  leading  characteristic,  it  is 
apt  to  become  narrower  and  more  bigoted  than  an  official  jour- 
nal. A  party  is  usually  the  result  of  a  prettj'  broad  generaliza- 
tion of  principles,  and  unless  the  unofficial  journal  can  take  its 
position  upon  the  broad  platform  of  truth,  and  have  the  independ- 
ence to  advocate,  without  fear  or  favor,  what  it  conceives  to  be 
the  right,  the  organ  is  to  be  preferred. 


GENERAL    CONVENTION.  49 

Journalism  in  the  United  Brethren  Church,  which  chiefly  con- 
cerns us  at  the  present  time,  has  an  interesting  history.  For 
many  years  the  church  knew  no  unofficial  journal.  Such  was  the 
general  spirit  of  liberty  and  independence  in  the  church  that  sev- 
eral angry  questions  could  be  freely  discussed,  and  reach  a  peace- 
ful settlement  without  an  unofficial  journal.  The  depravity  ques- 
tion, and  the  instrumental  music  question,  may  be  mentioned  as 
notable  instances.  Upon  the  secrecy  question,  which  for  many 
years  has  agitated  the  church,  the  progress  toward  a  peaceful  set- 
tlement has  not  been  so  satisfactory.  Pro  rata  representation 
and  lay  delegation  have  also  come  into  prominence  as  agitating 
questions,  but  they  are  angry  questions  mainly  because  of  their 
real  or  supposed  connection  with  the  secrecy  question. 

Respecting  the  regulations  of  the  church  upon  the  secrecy  ques- 
tion, it  is  no  misrepresentation  to  say  that  up  to  about  1867  the 
discussions  in  our  church  organ,  the  Religious  Telescope,  were  very 
one-sided,  and  that  there  was  very  little  toleration  for  dissent. 
Many  will  remember  how  it  startled  certain  portions  of  the 
church  when,  at  about  the  date  above  indicated,  the  columns  of 
the  Religious  Telescope,  then  under  the  editorial  management  of 
Rev.  D.  Berger,  were  thrown  open  to  free  discussion.  At  that 
time  the  regulations  of  the  church  ujDon  this  question  were  can- 
vassed with  a  freedom  never  before  known  nor  since  enjoyed. 
During  this  era  of  free  discussion  some  seemed  to  be  greatly 
alarmed.  The  distraction  and  ruin  of  the  church  were  freely  pre- 
dicted as  not  far  in  the  future  unless  this  free  discussion  should  be 
stopped.  The  editor,  however,  did  not  seem  to  share  these  appre- 
hensions, and  despite  all  protests  and  threats  kept  the  columns  of 
the  Telescope  open,  and  the  church  not  only  survived  but  actually 
prospered  under  the  dreadful  ordeal  of  free  speech,  until  the  meet- 
ing of  the  General  Conference  of  1869,  which  w^as  the  time  of 
reckoning  for  the  editor.  We  believe  it  was  never  charged  that 
the  editor  did  not  give  the  friends  and  advocates  of  our  secrecy 
regulations  full  liberty  in  his  columns  His  offense  was  that  he 
extended  courtesy  and  gave  liberty  to  dissenters.  This  was  the 
gravamen  of  the  charges  against  him,  and  although  he  carefully 
disavowed  the  action  proposed  by  the  minority  in  the  General 
Conference  of  1869,  and  avowed  a  practical  adhesion  to  the  meas- 
ure of  the  majority,  yet  all  would  not  avail.  He  was  given  a  back 
seat  as  an  associate  and  subordinate,  while  an  editor  who  could 
be  relied  upon  to  teach  dissenters  their  place  was  chosen.  Thus 
manned,  it  was  not  to  be  expected  that  the  Telescope  would  con- 
tinue a  free  medium  as  for  several  years  it  had  been ;  and  inas- 
much as  both  the  question  of  pro  rata  representation  and  lay  del- 
egation were  passed  upon  adversely,  the  project  of  establishing 
an  unofficial  journal,  for  the  free  discussion  of  these  and  other 
questions,  was  earnestly  canvassed,  but  was  for  the  time  aban- 
doned. For  four  years,  therefore,  the  advocates  of  reform  received 
very  little  help  from  the  press.  With  slight  exception,  there  was 
4 


50  UiNITED    BRETHREN 

no  active  advocacy  of  their  nioasures,  and  so  i'av  as  the  secrecy 
law  was  concerned,  the  dominant  voice  of  the  organ  was  either  in 
support  of  the  law  as  it  then  was,  or  in  support  of  still  more  rad- 
ical legislation.  The  previous  free  discussion,  however,  had  taught 
the  body  of  the  church  some  lessons  which  they  were  not  likely 
to  forget,  and  which,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  they  did  not  forget.  We 
say  body  of  the  church,  for  we  arc  obliged  to  confess  that  som^ 
prominent  in  the  counsels  of  the  church  do  not  seem  to  have 
learned  them  even  yet.  Prominent  among  these  lessons  are,  first, 
that  the  tenability  of  the  law  of  the  church  on  secret  societies  is 
an  open  question  and  legitimate  subject  for  discussion,  and  that  if 
the  law  of  the  church  is  to  be  vindicated  and  maintained  it  must 
be  done  by  good,  solid  arguments,  and  not  by  self  complacent  or 
arrogant  assumption.  Secondly,  it  taught  that  members  of  the 
church  could  dissent  from  this  law  of  the  church  and  advocate  its 
modification  or  repeal,  and  still  retain  honorable  standing  in  the 
church,  and  have  rights  which  their  opponents  were  bound  to 
respect. 

The  teaching  of  these  lessons  was  a  great  gain.  Prior  to  this 
it  required  no  little  nerve  to  question,  in  any  public  way,  the  wis- 
dom of  the  secrecy  law  of  the  church,  for  he  who  did  so  exposed 
himself  to  a  storm  of  denunciation,  scorn,  and  contempt,  which 
only  he  who  has  felt  its  fierce  blast  can  apjoreciate. 

When  the  General  Conference  of  1873  convened,  it  was  evident 
that  the  movement  for  the  modification  of  the  secrecy  law  for  pro 
rata  and  lay  rei^resentation  had  all  made  substantial  progress  in  the 
church.  80  manifest  was  this  in  respect  to  the  secrecy  law  that 
its  supporters  felt  that  very  radical  measures  must  be  adopted  to 
stay  this  progress  of  sentiment.  Although  some  very  extreme 
measures,  advocated  in  caucitses  and  in  committees,  ware  not^ 
final!}''  adopted,  yet  when  it  came  to  the  election  of  editors  there 
was  such  a  concentration  and  combination  of  forces  that  he  who 
for  four  years  occujiied  the  place  of  editor-in-chief  was  elected, 
and  for  his  associate,  equal  in  rank  and  authorit}'',  the  brother  was 
chosen  who  had  brought  himself  into  notice  as  a  candidate  by  the 
publication  of  an  article  in  the  Religious  Telescope,  in  which,  for 
substance,  he  argued  that  minorities  have  no  rights  which  major- 
ities are  bound  to  respect.  Though  the  term  "  minorities"  was 
used  in  a  general  way,  yet  those  familiar  with  the  parlance  of  the 
church  knew  very  well  that  the  chief  reference  was  to  those  who 
advocated  a  material  modification  of  the  secrecy  law. 

As  in  the  days  of  slavery  no  one  was  in  doubt  what  the  black 
man  might  expect  from  those  who  supported  and  applauded  the 
sentiment  of  Chief  Justice  Taney  in  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  that 
black  men  have  no  rights  Nvhich  white  men  are  bound  to  respect, 
80  those  then  commonly  called  the  minority,  who  advocated  the 
change  of  the  secrecy  law,  knew  what  the}'  might  expect  when 
one  who  maintained  that  they  had  no  rights  which  the  majority 
were  bound  to  respect  was  rewarded  with  high  place.     Nothing 


(GENERAL   CONVENTION.  51 

but  the  lack  of  power  will  keep  the  heel  of  one  holding  such  sen- 
timents off'  the  neck  of  those  against  whom  he  holds  them. 

This  action,  the  rejection  again  of  pro  rata  representation,  and 
the  fact  that  the  conference  speedily  nullified  its  apparently  gen- 
erous action  on  lay  delegation   by  its  action   on  the  fourth  article 
of  the  constitution,  convinced  the   friends  of  these  measures  that 
an  unofficial  journal  was  an  imperative  necessity,  and  that  the  set 
time  to  found  it  had  come.     After  due  deliberation  a  resolution  to 
project  such  a  journal  was  adojited,  and  a  committee  was  appointed 
charged  with   the  duty  of  founding  a  journal  in  which  tlaese  and 
other  measures  of  reform  might  be  freely  discussed  and  advocated. 
In  September  following  the  first  number  of  the  United  Brethren 
Tribune  was  issued.     Its  appearance  had  very  much  the  same 
effect  upon   certain   portions  of  the  church  which   free  discussion 
in  the  Jieligious  Telescope  had  had  some  seven  years  before.     There 
were  those  who  either  were,  or  affected  to  be,  very  much  alarmed. 
The    direst   consequences  to   the  church   were  freel}^   predicted 
\inless  its  publication  should  speedily  cease.     Several  annual  con- 
ferences denounced  it  by  resolution,  and   warned  their  member- 
ship against  patronizing  it.     The  Religious   Telescope,  after  the 
cynosure  was  heard  from,  took  the  high-toned  position  that  the 
journal  was  an  outlaw,  and  that  those  conducting  and  supporting 
it  i^laced  themselves  without  the  pale  of  the  worthy  memberslii}) 
of  the  church.     For  a  time  each  number  of  the  Telescope  seemed 
to  be  an   effort  to  surpass  the  previous  number  in  the  attemiDt  to 
humiliate  and  discredit  dissenting  ministers  before  their  congre- 
gations and  before  the  church.     \Vhile  these  ministers  were  at  the 
front  pushing  the  enterprises  of  the  church  and  winning  souls  to 
Christ,  this  persistent  fire  from  the  rear  was  kept  up  upon  them. 
For  a  time  it  was  borne  with  comparative  patience,  but  after  a 
time  one  of  the  editorial  contributors  of  the  Tribune  essayed  to 
debate  the  right  of  independent  church  journalism  through  the 
'  Telescope.     The  Tribune,  too,  turned  upon  these  assailants,  and  in 
a  way  that  to  some  of  us  mild-mannered  controversialists  seemed 
quite  rough,  repelled  their  assaults.     This  violent  course  of  the 
Tribune  had  at  least  this  good  effect,  that  it  taught  our  opponents 
that  if  the  stamping-out  policy  was  to  be  pursued,   there  were 
those  among  us  who  could  stamp  as  violently   and  remorselessly 
as  they.     Further,  there  were  those  high  in  the  counsels  of  th'e 
church  who  could  stand  quietly  by,  and,  rub  their  hands  with 
apparent  satisfaction  and  approval  while  these  outrageous  assaults 
Avere  made  upon  dissenting  ministers  and  members  from  week  to 
week,  but  when  these  assaults  were  returned  in  kind  they  were 
quick  to  see  the  evil  and  protest. 

The  church,  however,  soon  tired  of  this  violent  journalism. 
The  Tribune,  last  to  adopt  and  first  to  abandon  this  harsh  course, 
changed  its  name  and  its  tone,  and  the  General  Conference  of 
1877  elected  a  new  chief  for  the  Telescope,  and  the  associate  by 
the  very  masters  whom,   doubtless,  he  thought,  by  his  violent 


52  UNITED    BRETHREN 

course  to  please,  was  rebuked  by  being  given  a  subordinate  place, 
and  the  Telescope  ever  since  has  been  a  comparatively  respectful 
journal.  This  action  of  the  conference  was  ver}'  significant  as 
making  the  progress  of  sentiment  in  the  church.  It  was  a  change 
in  the  church  and  not  in  the  editor  that  rendered  the  action  of 
the  conference  desirable,  if  not  even  necessary. 

This  historic  retrospect  seemed  necessary  in  order  to  get  a  true 
idea  of  the  status  of  unofficial  journalism  in  the  United  Brethren 
Church.  True,  there  are  other  unofficial  journals  in  the  church, 
but  we  suppose  there  can  be  no  question  but  that  the  Observer, 
formerly  Tribune,  is  the  most  conspicuous  and  representative  of 
them  all.  Indeed,  we  think  it  is  the  only  one  that  even  professes 
to  have  a  broad  and  distinctive  mission  of  its  own,  and  the  onlj- 
one  whose  right  to  exist  has  been  contested. 

Of  course  we  do  not  suppose  that  the  most  ardent  friend  of 
unofficial  journalism  will  claim  that  the  Observer  has  been  all  that 
could  have  been  desired.  No  one  perhaps  would  be  willing  to 
indorse  all  its  utterances,  but  whatever  may  be  said  of  its  imper- 
fections and  shortcomings,  its  establishment  and  career  of  near 
five  years  marks  an  era  in  the  history  of  the  United  Brethren 
Church,  and,  we  think,  has  settled  some  questions  for  all  time  tu 
come.  Prominent  among  these  questions  is  the  right  of  an  unoffi- 
cial journal  representing  minority  views  to  exist.  As  already 
stated,  this  right  was  hotly  contested  when  the  Tribune- Observer 
was  founded.  It  was  claimed  that  no  matter  how  high  its  char- 
acter might  be,  it  was  an  outlaw,  and  ought  not  to  be  tolerated. 
All  the  weight  of  official  prestige  was  brought  to  bear  against  it. 
In  strange  contradiction,  it  was  at  one  time  sneered  at  as  too 
weak  and  contemptible  to  deserve  notice,  and  at  another  time 
warred  against  as  extremely  dangerous,  and  invested  with  power 
enough  to  disrupt  and  ruin  a  great  church.  But  the  guns  of  the 
opposition  upon  the  question  of  right  have  long  since  been 
silenced  and  the  contest  abandoned.  In  vindicating  and  main- 
taining successfully  the  right  of  unofficial  journalism  in  the 
United  Brethren  Church,  the  Tribune  won  its  earliest,  most  signal 
and  important  victory.  Had  it  rendered  no  other  service  to  the 
church,  this  alone  is  ampl}'  sufficient  to  compensate  for  all  the  toil 
and  sacrifice  its  maintenance  has  cost.  But  this  is  not  the  only 
service  it  has  rendered.  In  its  brief  career  it  has  revealed  many 
friends  of  the  measures  it  advocates  who  before  were  hidden,  and 
Las  emboldened  many  to  speak  out  who  before  were  silent.  Not 
all  who  have  but  recently  become  known  as  friends  of  these 
reform  measures  are  recent  converts.  Not  a  few  who  for  many 
years  have  held  liberal  views  have  kept  them  carefully  concealed 
within  their  own  breasts.  They  have  been  so  anxious  for  the 
good  opinion  of  those  high  in  authority  that  they  have  shrunk 
feai'fully  from  the  severe  censure  and  bitter  denunciation  which 
they  knew  would  be  visited  upon  them  should  they  dare  proclaim 
their  convictions,  and  they  have  preferred  to  keep  silent  rather 


GENERAL    CONVENTION.  53 

than  expose  themselves  to  this  persecution.  But  since  the  estab- 
lishment of  an  unofficial  journal,  which,  under  the  notice  of  the 
whole  church,  has  braved  these  assaults  and  has  stood  as  a  bold 
Avitness  for  free  speech,  not  a  few  of  these  timid  ones  have  been 
inspired  and  emboldened  to  speak  out,  and  thus  the  number  of 
those  who  are  publicly  committed  to  reform  measures  has  been 
largely  increased. 

It  is,  however,  but  very  partial  justice  to  say  that  the  Tribune- 
Observer  has  revealed  and  emboldened  friends  of  the  measures  it 
advocates.  It  has  made  friends  for  these  measures,  as  well  as  re- 
vealed them.  Truth,  we  are  confident,  will  sustain  the  claim  that 
hosts  who  were  enlisted  against  us  when  this  journal  was  founded, 
have,  by  its  instrumentality,  been  won  to  the  side  of  reform. 
Some  powerful  conferences  have  been  well  nigh,  if  not  altogether, 
revolutionized  since  it  began  its  career.  Of  course,  we  would  not 
credit  [the  Observer  with  all  this  work,  but  we  do  credit  it,  and 
we  think  justly,  with  enough  to  say  that  the  result  we  see  would 
not  have  been  brought  about,  at  least  so  soon,  Avithout  its  help. 
We  are  willing,  too,  to  make  proper  concej)tion  to  the  extrava- 
gance and  partisanship  of  some  of  our  opponents,  especially  sev- 
eral years^ago,  for  the  progress  of  our  cause.  Indeed,  as  Scipio, 
the  Eoman  commander,  feared  that  it  might  be  said  that  the  Alps 
and  not  the  Roman  legions  had  conquered  Hannibal ;  so  we  have 
sometimes  feared  that  it  might  be  said  that  their  own  folly  and 
violence,  and  not  our  wisdom  and  boldness,  had  conquered  our 
opponents.  Certain  it  is  that  the  extreme  partisanship  of  some 
of  our  opponents  has  opened  the  eyes  of  not  a  few  of  high  char- 
acter and  influence  in  the  church  to  the  unreasonable  dominance 
accorded  to  a  special  law,  and  thus  they  have  been  led,  after  years 
of  radical  opposition,  to  transfer  theii*  support  to  our  cause. 

The  action  of  the  General  Conference  of  1877,  we  think,  made 
it  evident  beyond  question  that  the  triumph  of  at  least  two  of  the 
great  measures  of  reform,  to  the  advocacy  of  which  the  Observer 
has  been  devoted,  is  a  foregone  conclusion.  We  refer  to  the  ques- 
tions of  lay  delegation  and  pro  rata  repi'esentation.  On  the  former 
the  liberty  has  already  been  accorded  to  the  annual  conferences  to 
give  the  laymen  a  place  in  tueir  councils,  and  but  one  majority 
was  marshalled  against  a  modified  form  of  pro  rata  representation. 
On  the  third  question — the  modification  or  repeal  of  our  secrecy  law 
— the  evklences  of  our  triumph  are  not,  perhaps,  so  apparent,  but 
Ave  belieA'e  not  less  certain.  The  days  of  terrorism  upon  this  ques- 
tion Avill,  by  and  b}",  be  over.  Our  dear  brethren  who  now  look 
upon  us'with  so  much  suspicion,  and  like  Bro.  M.  .S.  Drury,  of  Iowa, 
in  the  last  number  of  the  Telescope,  Avritu  about  us  Avith  such  un- 
kind severity,  and  the  editors,  Avho  lend  the  columns  of  the  church 
organ,  Avhich  we  patronize  and  sustain,  to  circulate  these  asper- 
sions upon  us,  their  brethren  in  Christ,  shall  yet  learn  that  Ave  are 
not  the  enemies,  but  friends  of  the  United  Brethren  Church;  that 
we  seak  not  her  destruction  and  ruin,  but  the  enlargement  of  her 


54  UNITED    BRETHREN 

borders,  the  strengthening  of  her  influence,  and  the  increase  of 
her  usefulness  ;  that  we  will  stand  beside  them  and  keep  abreast 
of  them  in  the  toil  and  sacrifice,  and  money  Ave  are  read3'  to  give 
to  the  interests  and  institutions  of  this  church.  That  unof- 
ficial journalism  has  done  much  to  hasten  that  glad  day  when  we 
shall  be  better  understood,  and  more  justly  interpreted,  we  firmlj' 
believe. 

If  we  have  not  overestimated  the  service  of  unofficial  journal- 
ism in  the  United  Brethren  Church,  then  it  is  pertinent  to  ask, 
If  a  journal,  founded  without  capital  or  prestige,  with  no  paid 
corps  of  editors,  and  with  editorial  contributors  so  engrossed  Avith 
other  duties,  that  the  majority  of  them  have  Avritten  little  for  its 
columns,  Avith  the  official  voice  of  the  church,  part  of  the  time, 
loudl}'  and  ,threatingly  against  it,  and  with  not  eA^en  the  friends 
of  the  measures  it  advocates  thoroughly  united  in  its  support,  can 
accomplish  so  much,  what  might  not  a  journal  accomplish  Avith 
adecjuate  capital,  Avith  editors  properly  paid,  and  efficient  contrib- 
utors, Avith  the  official  voice  of  the  opposition  as  to  its  right  to  ex- 
ist silenced,  and  Avith  the  hearty  ana  united  support  of  the  large 
and  groAving  constituency  it  represents  ? 

We  take  it  that  those  who  have  conducted  this  journal  under 
such  great  disadvantages  up  to  this  time  Avill  greatl}-  rejoice  at 
any  measures  which  may  be  devised  to  secure  for  it  a  stronger 
financial  basis,  enabling  it  to  command  the  whole  time  of  an  ef- 
ficient editor  and  rise  to  a  position  that  will  comport  someAvhat 
with  its  high  mission  and  the  number  and  ability  of  its  constitu- 
ency. There  is  much  Avork  in  the  church  for  an  unofficial  jour- 
nal, and  such  a  journal  of  high  character  will  have  a  large  and 
inviting  field  of  usefulness,  and  Ave  believe  Avill  receive  a  liberal 
patronage.  In  portraying  the  character  of  the  journal  that  Avill 
meet  the  exigency  of  the  times  in  the  church,  Ave  Avould  name  as 
prime  requisites: 

1.  Courage  and  independence.  Some  of  the  measures  which 
it  Avill  still  be  its  mission  to  advocate  and  defend  are  opposed  Avith  a 
zeal  bordering  on  desperation,  and  no  coAvardly,  compromising  par- 
tisan sheet  can  meet  the  emergency  and  be  useful  in  carrying  these 
measures.  A  journal  that  will  coAver  before  threats  and  opposi- 
tion has  no  business  in  such  a  contest,  for  it  Avill  be  sure,  al  the 
critical  hour,  to  betray  the  cause  it  Avas  set  to  defend.  We  do  not 
mean  that  by  being  brave  it  shall  be  violent  and  abusive;  indeed, 
we  mean  the  very  opposite.  A  religious  journal  Avhich  assumes 
to  be  contending  for  truth  and  right  can  aftbrd  to  be  calm  and 
courteous.  It  will  not  unnecessarialy  wound  the  feelings,  or  at 
at  any  time  invade  the  rights  of  even  the  most  determined  op- 
ponent. It  will  scrupulously  avoid  all  bitterness,  for  it  is  most 
unseemly  to  come  to  the  advocacy  of  good  in  a  bad  spirit,  and 
invariably  causes  the  good  to  be  evil-spoken  of  and  places  it 
in  a  very  disadA'atageous  position  in  the  conflict. 

2.  It  must,  in  the  best  sense,  be  true  to  the  church.     This  does 


GENERAL  CONVENTION.  55 

not  require  that  it  applaud  and  approve  all  the  regulations  of 
the  church,  whether  they  be  believed  to  be  right  or  wrong.  (.>n  the 
contrary  it  requires  that  it  use  all  reasonable  endeavor,  in  a  kind. 
Christian  way,  to  right  whatever  it  may  be  convinced  is  w^rong. 
To  be  true  to  the  church  in  the  best  sense  requires  that  there  be 
a  burning  desire  to  promote,  in  every  way,  the  highest  interest  of 
the  church,  free  her  from  every  error,  whether  in  doctrine  or  pol- 
ity, and  invest  her  with  every  excellence,  so  that  she  may  be  a 
truly  glorious  church  in  character  and  achievement.  To  defend 
and  advocate  that  which  is  believed  to  be  wrong, ^which  is  believed 
greatly  to  impair  the  power  of  the  church  for  good,  and  to  cir- 
cumscribe her  sphere  of  usefulness  in  the  world,  is  not  to  be  true, 
but  false  to  the  church.  That  there  is  need  of  extreme  caution 
here  is  freely  granted,  indeed  insisted  upon.  There  is  danger  of 
becoming  mere  restless  agitators  and  captious  fault-finders,  and  of 
being  governed  by  passion  and  prejudice  rather  than  by  convic- 
tion. While  opposing  and  resenting  the  odious  doctrine  that  mi- 
norities have  no  rights  which  majorities  are  bound  to  respect, 
there  is  danger  of  rushing  to  the  opposite  extreme,  certainly  not 
less  odious,  and  acting  as  if  majorities  had  no  rights  which  mi- 
norities are  bound  to  respect.  Nothing  but  the  grace  of  Grod  can 
steady  weak,  human  nature  here;  nothing  but  divine  illumination 
can  safelj^  guide. 

3.  It  must  be  a  broad  catholic  journal.  The  questions  of  re- 
form relating  to  the  secrecy  law,  pro  rata  representation,  and  lay 
delegation  are  very  important  questions,  involving  great  principle, 
and  no  journal  can  be  narrow  which  shall  give  these  questions  an 
intelligent  advocacy.  But  an  unofficial  journal  has  a  wider  sphere 
than  this.  It  is  proper,  indeed,  that,  until  these  questions  are 
carried,  great  prominence  be  given  them,  and  that  they  be  kept 
prominently  before  the  church.  But  a  journal  that  should  con- 
fine itself  to  these  questions  not  only  would  not  be  as  useful  as  it 
might  be,  but  when  these  questions  are  carried,  would  be  without 
n  mission,  and  would  soon  pass  out  of  existence ;  whereas,  we  be- 
lieve that  an  unofficial  journal  should  be  one  of  the  permanent 
forces  of  the  church,  and  may  always  be  useful  in  promoting  her 
interests.  A  journal  which  shall  give  an  intelligent  and  earnest 
support  to  our  educational  institutions,  to  our  missionary  enter- 
prises, to  our  Sabbath-school  work  and  publication  interests,  that 
beyond  these,  will  lift  its  voice  in  favor  of  temperance,  justice, 
and  honesty  in  the  land,  and  that  will  boldly  oj^pose  vice  and 
wickedness  in  whatever  guise  they  may  present  themselves,  that 
above  all  and  beyond  all,  they  will  stand  for  the  defense  of  a  pure 
Christianity,  and  will  seek  to  promote  scriptural  holiness  in  the 
world,  such  a  journal  will  never  lack  for  highest  and  worthiest 
employ,  and  will  undoubtedly  be  liberally  sustained. 

After  the  address   Eev.  A.  Eose,  from  the  Committee  on  Inde- 


56  UNITED  BRETHREiN 

pandent  Journalism,  made  a  report,  which,  with   slight  amend- 
ments, was  adopted,  as  follows : 

INDEPENDENT    JOURNALISM. 

Besolced,  1.  That  the  movement  represented  b}'  this  conventioD 
can  not  succeed  without  an  organ. 

2.  That  from  its  projection  to  the  present  time  the  United  Breth- 
ren Observer  has  served  the  movement  we  represent  with  a  good 
degree  of  efficiency. 

3.  That  the  organ  of  this  movement  be  hereafter  located  at  Bay- 
ton,  Ohio,  unless  some  other  more  suitable  place  can  be  found,  and 
that  the  subscription  list  of  the  United  Brethren  Observer  be  trans- 
ferred to  said  pajjer,  provided  the  trustees  incur  no  financial  or 
legal  liability. 

4.  That  a  board  of  seven  trustees  be  appointed  by  the  conven- 
tion to  whom  shall  be  intrusted  the  securing  of  a  fund  which  in 
their  judgment  will  be  sufficient  to  maintain  such  paper,  and  that 
the  management  shall  be  in  their  hands. 

The  following  brethren  w^ere  appointed  said  Board  of  Trustees: 
Laymen — D.  L.  Eike,  John  Dodds,  J.  B.  Xumler.  Ministers — 
D.  R.  Miller,  I.  Grouse,  H.  Garst. 

CENTRAL    COMMITTEE, 

Besolved,  That  there  be  appointed  a  Central  Committee,  com- 
posed of  ministers  and  laymen.  The  following  Avere  duly  ap- 
pointed said  committee:  Bevs.  W.  McKee,  J.  B.  Eesler,  D.  R. 
Miller;  and  John  Dodds,  James  Applegate,  D.  L.  Rike,  and  J.  B. 
Kumler. 

INSTRUCTIONS. 

That  the  Central  Committee  be  instructed  to  appoint  for  each 
bishop's  district  of  the  church  an  Executive  Committee  with  whom 
to  co-operate  in  the  promotion  throughout  the  church  of  the  re- 
form we  represent;  and  that  the  Executive  Committee  appoint 
sub-committees  in  each  conference  for  like  co-operation  with- 
them. 

That  the  Central  Committee  be  instructed  to  transmit  to  each 
annual  conference  the  resolutions  adopted  by  this  convention  in 
regard  to  pro  rata  representation,  lay  delegation,  the  secrecy  law,, 
and  rights  of  minorities,  and  ask  from  said  conferences  an  expres- 
sion of  sentiment  on  these  subjects. 

That  when  this  convention  adjourns  it  meet  in  May,  1880,  unless- 
sooner  called  together  by  the  Central  Committee. 

Rev.  1).  R.  INIiller,  from  the  Committee  on  Resolutions,  made 
the  following 

REPORT    ON    RESOLUTIONS. 

Resolved,  That  we  are  in  full  sympathy  with  and  stand  pledged 
to  maintain  the  foundation   principles  of   the    United  Brethrea 


GENERAL  CONVENTION.  57 

Church  as  taught  from  the  lij)8  and  exhibited  in  the  founders  of 
the  church,  viz. : 

1.  That  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  as  the  only  Savior  of  sinners  ;  a 
thorough  change  of  heart  eftected  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  resulting 
in  joyful  experience,  harmonizing  the  feelings  and  affections  of 
men  with  the  will  of  God,  and  producing  Taithful  and  earnest 
work  for  the  salvation  of  men,  and  the  glory  of  God,  are  the  true 
and  real  tests  of  church  membership. 

2.  That  in  our  institutions  of  learning,  both  classical  and  the- 
ological, we  see  absolutely  important  auxiliaries  to  church  work 
and  growth,  and  that  in  their  management  and  support  the  ques- 
tions in  dispute  should  not  be  allowed  to  retard  their  progress. 

3.  That  we  regret  the  growing  indebtedness  of  our  general 
missionary  board,  and  the  manifest  want  of  support  of  this  im- 
portant branch  of  church  work,  and  suggest  as  a  practical  remedy 
Such  regulations  as  will  secure  one  representative  from  each  branch 
society  on  the  board,  a  portion  of  whom  should  be  our  business 
laymen. 

4.  That  we  are  gratified  to  see  the  zeal  manifested  by  the 
women  of  the  church,  and  their  success  in  their  missionary  ef- 
forts, and  jDledge  them  our  sympathy  and  support  in  their  good 
work. 

5.  That  we  are  pleased  with  the  spirit  and  ability  with  which 
Bro.  11.  Cowden  is  conducting  Sunday-school  institutes  in  the 
church,  and  will  render  him,  or  any  other  workers  in  this  good 
ca\ise,  all  the  aid  in  our  power. 

6.  That  the  Evangelical  Association  and  the  United  Brethren 
Church  in  spirit  and  purpose  are  one,  and  that  the  cause  of  God, 
the  membership,  and  instutions  of  these  churches  would  be  better 
served  by  organic  union;  therefore,  we  will  encourage  any  proper 
effort  to  secure  such  union. 

7.  That  we  rejoice  in  the  increasing  sentiment  in  favor  of  tem- 
perance in  this  country,  and  pledge  our  hearty  support  to  everj' 
legitimate  effort  to  drive  from  this  land  the  monster  evil  of  in- 
temperance. 

The  ninth  topic — The  Sunday-school  Work  of  the  Church — was 
taken  up,  and  the  cliscussion  opened  by  Eev.  E.  S.  Chapman. 

The  discussion  was  continued  by  Eev.  D.  Berger,  Col.  E.  Cow- 
den, E.  Light,  and  Z.  Warner.  The  topic  was  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  the  State  of  the  Church. 

On  motion,  adjourned.    Singing,  and  benediction  by  Prof.  Garst. 


THIRD  DAY— EVENING  SESSION. 

The  convention  met  at   7:30  p.  m.     Bro.  S.  Adams  conducted 
the  devotional  exercises. 

Eev.  D.  E.  Miller  rose  to  a  personal  explanation,  stating  that  in 


58  UNITED  BRETHREN 

his  remarks  on  3-esterday  that  the  general  offieers  of  the  church 
held  their  offices  by  a  minority  vote,  he  spoke  in  a  general  way, 
and  did  not  mean  that  they  (the  general  officers)  all  held  their 
offices  in  this  way,  from  the  fact  that  several  of  them  had  been 
elected  by  a  large  majority  in  the  General  Conference. 

The  report  of  the  Committee  on  Publication  of  Minutes  was 
amended  and  adopted,  as  follows : 

1.  That  W.  McKee,  John  Dodds,  and  D.  L.  Eike  be  appointed 
a  committee  to  jDublish  the  minutes  of  convention  in  pamphlet 
form,  with  instructions  to  publish  as  many  copies  as  in  their  judg- 
ment they  think  may  be  proper. 

2.  That  they  be  instructed  to  secure  as  full  reports  as  possible 
of  the  papers  presented  and  speeches  made  before  this  convention. 

3.  That  the  cost  of  the  minutes  be  assessed  to  the  delegates  to 
this  convention  on  the  pro  rata  basis,  and  the  minutes  distributed 
in  like  manner. 

4.  That  the  Committee  on  Minutes  shall  have  charge  of  all 
papers  coming  to  the  convention,  but  not  referred  for  publication. 

Resolved,  That  the  Publishing  Committee  shall  have  charge  of 
all  the  papers  of  the  convention,  whether  formally  referred  to 
them  or  not. 

The  tenth  topic — The  rights  of  minorities  under  legislation  by 
unequal  representation,  was  now  considered. 

REV.    Z.    WARNER    ON    MINORITIES. 
THE    RIGHTS    OF    MINORITIES    UNDER    LEGISLATION   BY    UNEQUAL    REP- 
RESENTATION. 

This  is  a  difficult  question  to  discuss,  and  except  one  book  and 
one  pamphlet,  nothing  has  been  written  upon  it.  On  this  account 
we  are  left  to  our  own  invention  and  resources  in  presenting  any 
thing  on  the  subject.  But  before  entering  upon  the  discussion  of 
the  subject  itself,  1  wish  to  say  something  on  a  few  incidental 
questions.  The  first  of  these  is  this:  What  are  the  rights  of  indi- 
viduals as  church-members? 

In  order  to  become  a  church-member  must  one  lose  bis  individ- 
uality, or  does  he  surrender  his  natural  rights?  By  natural  rights 
we  mean  those  that  are  God-given  in  the  charter  of  our  being, 
and  which  on  that  account  are  sacred  and  inalienable.  These  are 
above  all  constitutions  and  laws.  Life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit 
of  happiness,  arc  natural  rights.  Included  in  liberty  is  the  right 
of  conscience,  private  judgment,  and  unrestrained  action  so  long 
as  that  action  does  not  affect  injuriously  the  rights  of  others.  The 
church  dare  not  touch  these  rights,  and  the  individual  dare  not 
surrender  them. 

2.  With  popular  suffrage,  what  is  majority  rule,  and  how 
reached  ?     The  only  answer  I  have  to  this  question  is  this  :     The 


GENERAL  CONVENTION.  59 

body  must  be  composed  of  men  for  whom  a  majority  of  votes  was 
cast.  Now,  in  order  to  this  there  must  be  a  uniform  basis  of  rep- 
resentation, subject  only  to  such  changes  as  may  be  demanded  by 
the  nature  of  things.  The  facts  in  this  church  are  not  compli- 
mentary to  either  our  intelligence  or  honesty.  As  to  the  people, 
this  basis  is  unequal  and  constantly  changing.  Either  increase  or 
decrease  of  people  will  augment  this  inequality.  A  conference 
with  five  thousand  members  can  have  by  five  divisions  of  terri- 
tory five  times  as  much  representative  power.  The  aggregate 
membership  has  not  been  increased  in  this  case,  but  the  delegation 
has  been  increased  five  times.  The  people  of  these  five  divisions 
may  in  each  case  be  increased  to  the  original  number  without 
increasing  the  representative  power  in  the  least.  Indeed,  inexact 
proportion  to  the  inci'ease  of  people  is  the  diminution  of  repre- 
sentative power.  Once  more  :  The  smaller  the  population  in  any 
given  territory  the  greater  the  representative  power.  Divisions 
of  both  territory  and  people  increases  the  representative  power, 
while  consolidation  and  increase  of  these  diminishes  this  repre- 
sentative power.  This,  so  far  as  I  now  remember,  is  without  par- 
allel, analogy,  or  precedent. 

Now  for  facts  bearing  on  this  subject :  In  this  church  to-day 
87,21-4  members   have  42  delegates  in  the    General    Conference, 

■  while  61,549  members  have  84  delegates.  That  is  to  say,  25,665 
members  less  have  42  delegates  more,  or  twice  as  many  as  the 
greater  aggregate. 

More  particularly,  and  to  bring  out  more  forcibly  the  injustice 

I  of  the  present  method  of  representation,  take  Walla  Walla  Con- 
ference, which  sends  one  delegate  for  every  69  members,  while 
Sandusky  Conference  sends  one  for  every  2,320  members.  The 
pertinent  question  at  this  point  is  this :,  Must  we  accept  this  basis 
of  69  members  as  being  just  and  right?  If  not  right,  then  it 
should  be  changed.  If  only  right  in  this  particular  conference, 
why?  What  is  therein  the  pietj^  territory,  people,  or  circum- 
stances of  this  conference  to  demand  this  that  does  not  exist  in 
other  conferences  ?  If  this  basis  is  right  in  this  conference,  it  is 
right  in  every  other  conference,  and  therefore  Sanduskj-  Confer- 
ence should  have  117  and  my  own  conference  94  delegates  to  the 
General  Conference.  On  this  basis  of  one  delegate  to  every  69 
members,  the  General  Conference  would  be  made  up  of  2,157  del- 
egates, or  the  membership  of  the  church  should  be  no  more  than 
8,794.  For  ifwe  recognize  this  basis  as  being  just,  none  but  the 
above  number  has  any  right  to  be  represented,  as  126  delegates 
can  represent  no  more.  This  would  leave  139,000  members  as  a 
useless  ajjpendage  to  the  church  as  to  representation. 

The  truth  is,  that  with  the  existing  method  37,460  members  of 
the  church  to-day  can  control  the  legislation  of  the  church.  More 
than  this,  can  control  its  administrative  boards,  money,  and 
institutions,  they  having  66  delegates,  while  the  remaining  111,- 
303  have  but  60 — in  the  former   case,  one  delegate  for  every  568 


GO  UNITED  BRETHREN 

members,  and  in  the  latter  case,  one  for  every  1,855.  This  identi- 
fies the  real  minority  and  brings  out  the  true  majority.  The  act- 
ing majority  in  the  church  is  not  real,  but  apparent.  Acting  as  a 
majorit}'  is  a  usurpation.  To  use  this  accidental  authority  is  to 
hold  unjust  power  and  violate  Christian  equitj".  The  way  is 
opened  by  this  ^tate  of  things  to  impose  taxation  without  repre- 
sentation, which  is  always  wrong  in  jjrinciple  and  oppressive  in 
practice. 

The  moral  sense  of  a  church  that  will  tolerate  minority  rule 
in  the  end  will  sanction  all  its  unrighteous  measures,  und  these 
the  minority  must  adopt  to  perpetuate  its  power.  Intrinsically 
weak,  it  must  make  up  for  this  by  caucusing  and  combining  so 
as  to  prevent  the  rightful  claimants  to  authority  having  the  rights 
they  should  possess.  Can  any  body,  having  the  law-making  pow- 
er, properly  enact  such  laws  under  this  state  of  facts?  To  answer 
this  we  must  know  what  law  is.  We  answer  this  question  thus  : 
Law  is  a  rule  of  action  competent  as  to  its  authority  and  equit- 
able as  to  its  principles.  When  a  law  is  thus  constructed  all  for 
whom  it  is  intended  must  obey  it.  All  church  laws  to  be  entitled 
to  respect  must  be  equitable.  Blackstone  says,  "Equity,  in  its 
true  and  genuine  sense  or  meaning,  is  the  soul  and  spirit  of  all 
law.  Positive  law  is  construed  and  rational  law  made  by  it.  In 
this  equity  is  synonymous  with  justice."  We  lay  it  down  as  an 
incontrovertible  proposition,  that  an  actual  minority  can  not  have 
competent  authority,  and  on  that  account  can  not  make  laws,  even 
for  itself,  so  long  as  it  remains  a  part  of  the  whole.  Legislation 
to  be  valid  must  reflect  the  sentiments  of  a  majority  of  the  con- 
stituency, or  those  in  whose  names  it  is  done.  Legislation  must 
be  the  act  of  the  people,  or  they  are  not  bound  by  it.  Has  the 
accidental  minority  rights?  Certainly  actual  minorities  have. 
In  congress  these  rights  are  recognized  in  the  formation  of  com- 
mittees. This  is  true  in  the  late  committee  on  fraud,  which  is 
thought  by  some  men  of  all  parties  to  be  extremely  partisan  in 
its  purpose.  The  General  Conference  has  not  recognized  this 
right.  Will  these  rights  be  granted?  I  fear  not.  i  do  not  re- 
member a  single  instance  in  which  a  church  radically  and  con- 
sciously wrong  has  ever  been  reformed.  For  this  there  are  rea- 
sons. The  moral  sense  of  a  church  that  will  not  only  tolerate, 
but  advocate  and  defend  wrong  for  one  year,  has  not  only  pre- 
])ared  itself,  but  bound  itself,  to  do  so  always.  It  is  both  demor- 
alized and  governed  by  a  false  standard  of  right.  Wrongs,  we 
believe,  exist  in  this  church.  Should  we  submit  to  them?  If 
those  Avho  placed  them  upon  us  were  so  saintly  as  to  be  incapable 
of  sin,  and  so  wise  as  to  be  infallible,  we  should.  But  they  are 
men  no  better  nor  Aviser  than  we,  and  on  that  account  worth  no  more 
in  this  contest.  The  Duke  of  Argyle,  in  his  lieign  of  Law,  says, 
"When  the  aim  of  any  given  association  is  a  high  one,  directed  to 
ends  really  good,  and  seeking  the  attaining  of  them  by  justjmethods 
of  procedure,  the  spirit  it  invokes  becomes  itself  a  new  'law."" 


GENERAL  CONVENTION.  CI 

It  is  also  true  that  such  association  may  be  justified  on  the  ground 
that  individuals  require  protection  against  the  judicial  as  well  as 
legislative  action.  When  a  church  invades  natural  rights,  those 
which  God  gives,  and  which  man  himself  dare  not  abuse  and  for 
the  use  of  which  he  must  give  an  account  to  God,  then  the  indi- 
vidual— the  apparent  minority — must  do  something  for  defense 
against  usurpation.  The  soul  is  not  the  plaything  of  tyrants, 
even  in  priestly  robes.  Religion  can  not  elevate  any  man  who 
sacrifices  his  convictions  and  self-resjject  for  the  sake  of  seeming 
peace.  That  which  is  wrong  in  principle  is  wrong  eternally,  and 
rolling  it  in  the  forms  of  law  will  not  change  its  character.  But 
what  can  an  enforced  minority  do  ?  It  can  act  for  itself  along  the 
lines  of  natural  rights.  Submission,  for  j-ears,  to  organic  or 
statutory  wrong  does  not  take  away  the  right  of  rearess.  Truth 
and  justice,  like  God,  abide  forever,  and  the  church  that  with- 
holds these  rights  dechristianizes  itself  to  that  extent: 

1.  The  minority  can  protest,  and  the  protest  should,  of  right, 
be  placed  upon  the  journal.  This  we  have  done  as  far  as  we 
could,  and  our  statements  remain  unanswered  and  uncontradicted. 

2.  It  can  refuse  to  pay  taxes.  ]So  right  is  clearer  than  this. 
It  has  been  vindicated  by  men  dying  in  its  defense.  To  deny  it 
is  to  sneer  at  both  history- and  justice.  Freemen  can  not  submit 
to  taxation  without  representation  except  they  become  slaves. 

3.  It  can  refuse  to  send  delegates  to  the  General  Conference  so 
long  as  they  are  denied  equity  in  that  body. 

4.  It  can  refuse  to  recognize  the  authority  of  any  boards  not 
made  up  on  the  representative  plan. 

There  lies  on  our  side  of  the  church  the  power  to  deal  with  re- 
calcitrants, I  suppose,  and  the  church  may  use  it,  provided  it  has 
a  competent  tribunal.  Is  the  General  Conference  that  tribunal? 
If  so,  then  it  has  power  to  pass  upon  its""  own  acts  judiciously.  In 
that  case  it  may  become  an  irresponsible  despotism,  whose  op- 
presive  acts  may  precipitate  rebellion.  Men  are  not  bound  to  ac- 
cept and  be  held  by  every  thing  that  may  be  in  the  polity  of  the 
church  they  join.  Much  less  are  they  bound  by  what  the  church 
may  afterward  do  or  require.  That  would  be  to  submit  to  Avhat 
our  brethren  on  the  other  side  condemn  the  lodge  for.  To  dis- 
sent from  these  unwise  and  unjust  arrangements  is  not  sinful,  but 
may  be  entirely  in  the  interest  of  moral  justice  and  religion.  ^Ye 
need  not  hope  to  conciliate  those  whose  rules  are  incompetent  as 
to  authority  and  without  equity  of  principle. 

After  the  address  the  convention  passed  the  following : 

Resolved,  That  the  minority  of  this  church  should  have  a  just 
recognition  in  the  make-up  of  the  general  officers  and  boards  of 
the  church. 

COMPLIMENTARY. 

That  the  thanks  of  the  convention  are  due,  and  hereby  heartily 


G2  UNITED    BRETHREN 

tendered,  to  the  C,  H.  and  D.  and  D.  and  M.  E.  E. ;  the  P., 
C.  and  St.  L.  E.  E. ;  the  C,  C,  C.  and  I.  E.  E. ;  the  C,  S.  and 
C.  E.  E. ;  the  B.  and  O.  E.  E.;  the  I.,  B.  and  W.  E.  E.,  for  tavors 
bestowed  on  the  delegates  and  visitors  to  this  convention. 

That  Ave  highly  appreciate  the  painstaking  and  complimentary 
reports  of  this  convention  published  by  so  many  of  the  papers, 
both  secular  and  religious,  in  the  country  at  large,  and  particu- 
larly by  the  Dayton  Journal  and  Dayton  Democrat. 

That  the  convention  hereby  tender  their  heartfelt  thanks  to  the 
First  United  Brethren  Church  for  the  use  of  their  house  of  wor- 
ship, and  to  all  the  United  Brethren  families  and  others  in  Day- 
ton for  the  generous  and  princely  hospitality  extended  to  the  del- 
eorates  and  visitors  to  the  convention. 

That  we  extend  a  vote  of  thanks  to  the  president  and  secreta- 
ries who  have  so  faithfully  served  this  convention. 

After  a  brief  but  pertinent  address  by  the  president,  the  con- 
vention ajourned.  After  singing  the  doxology  the  chairman  dis- 
missed with  a  brief  prayer. 

G.  ^Y.  M.  EIGOE, 
J.  W.  NYE, 

Secretaries. 


GENERAL    CONVENTION.  63 

AN  INDEPENDENT  RELIGIOUS  JOURNAL. 
The  convention,  whose  proceedings  are  herein  recorded,  de- 
cided that  in  order  to  jiresent  these  questions  to  our  people  and 
the  public  upon  their  merits,  it  Avill  be  necessary  to  publish  an  in- 
dependent religious  journal;  and  for  the  purpose  of  providing  for 
this  necessity  a  board  of  trustees  was  elected,  which  is  composed 
of  the  following  persons  :  Kev.  D.  IJ.  Miller,  of  Marion,  O. ;  D.  L. 
Hike,  John  Dodds,  J.  B.  Kumler,  and  James  Applegate,  of  Day- 
ton, O.';  Prof.  H.  Garst,  of  Westerville,  O, ;  and  Rav.  Isaac  Grouse, 

of  Fostoria,  O. 

In  the  organization  of  the  board  D.  R.  Miller  was  elected  j)resi- 

dent,  Isaac  Grouse,  secretary,  and  D.  L.  Rike,  John   Dodds,  and 
J.  B.  Kumler  an  executive  committee. 

The  board  of  trustees  held  a  meeting  at  Marion,  Ohio,  June  20, 
187S,  to  deliberate  upon  the  work  committed  to  them,  and  reached 
the  following  conclusions: 

1.  That  for  the  purpose  of  publishing  an  indej)endent  religious 
journal,  and  furnishing  other  printed  matter,  a  stock  company  be 
organized  to  be  known  as  "  The  United  Brethren  Independent 
Publishing  Gompany." 

2.  That  said  "  United  Brethren  Independent  Publishing  Com- 
pany "  be  organized  upon  a  financial  basis  of  ten  thousand  ($10,000) 
dollars,  with  stock  shares  of  fifty  ($50)  dollars  each  payable  in  in- 
stallments, as  follows  :  The  first  installment  not  to  exceed  twenty 
percent,  on  the  amount  subscribed,  payable  at  the  discretion  of  the 
board  of  trustees  at  any  time  after  five  thousand  ($5,000)  dollars- 
shall  have  been  subscribed ;  the  balance  to  be  made  payable  in 
semi-annual  installments  of  ten  per  cent.  each.  Stock  notes  not 
to  be  liable  to  assessment  beyond  the  amount  for  which  they  are 
given. 

3.  Each  stockholder  shall  be  entitled  to  one  vote,  for  each  share 
held,  in  the  election  of  a  board  of  trustees. 

4.  The  board  appointed  Rev.  D.  R.  Miller,  Rev.  Wm.  McKee, 
and  Rev.  Isaac  Grouse  a  committee  to  prepare  forms  for  stock 
subscriiJtions,  secure  incorporation,  and  appoint  local  commit- 
tees to  raise  funds,  etc.  The  committee  is  authorized  to  raise 
funds  by  subscriptions  to  stock,  by  donations  and  contributions. 

Brethren  and  friends, — We  believe  that  our  cause  is  just,  hon- 
orable, religious,  and  in  harmony  with  the  best  interests  of  the 
Ghurch  of  the  United  Brethren  in  Christ.  Our  plea  in  her  behalf 
must  be  heard  in  order  to  be  understood  and  appreciated.  We 
must  have  an  organ  ;  this  will  cost  money.  If  you  are  friendly^ 
will  3'ou  help  us  ?     Correspondence  is  solicited. 

D.  R.  MILLER,  President, 

3Iarion,  Ohio. 
Isaac  Grouse,  Secretary,  Fostoria,  Ohio. 


I 


